Why not tell the truth, Roy?

Roy Lipscomb writes:

Chicago--The Illinois Ballot Integrity Project offers this advice to voters:

1) Vote on paper, not on a touch-screen.

But you know that 80% of all American paper ballots are first run through unsecurable optical scanners and then tallied secretly by easily hacked central tabulators.

2) Vote in person, not by mail.

That will assure that you can vote, but not that your vote will be counted, no less counted accurately.

3) Vote on election day, not earlier.

What difference does it make when you vote if you vote isn't counted or is miscounted and flipped to a different candidate than you chose?

4) Report election abuses! (If you live in Illinois, see the list of hotlines at http://ballot-integrity.org/callin.htm Also, please post a public report at http://ballot-integrity.org/blog )

Report them to whom, Roy? The oranizations monitoring election fraud? And who will they report them to? The media that doesn't care? The courts that are Constitutionally barred from intervening? The Congress that mandated rigged elections through HAVA in the first place? The Supreme Court that stole the 2000 election? 

Ballots cast in this way are less subject to loss, damage, or alteration than ballots that spend more time out of public view.

If they're lost, they're lost. There isn't such a thing as less lost, any more than there's such a thing as being just a little bit pregnant.

Touch-screen machines are particularly prone to malfunction. Though they are designed to produce a paper receipt for backup, this safeguard is deficient.

That's right. Once the "results" are announced, no amount of evidence of fraud can prevent Congress from swearing in the "winner" and once they're sworn in only Congress can remove them. So audits and recounts after the fact do not provide a remedy for a stolen election.

* Receipts rarely get used to check the machine count.

Even if they are used, once the machine count is announced, the election is over, it's history, and the rest is just commentary.

* Most voters do not confirm their receipt.

Machines are quite capable of printing out receipts that match what the voter selected, while recording the votes completely differently. So all you are checking is what you already know, how you voted, but you cannot check how the machine recorded your vote or if the central tabulator subsequently reallocates your vote.

* Many receipts turn out to be defective.

Since they only reflect what was voted, not what was recorded, they are ALL defective.

* A machine's data and receipts can be replaced wholesale once the machine is out of sight.

And there's plenty of time to do it, since the public is barred from entering elections offices after hours and is restricted to certain areas during the hours we are allowed in.

Protect your votes from going AWOL. Vote in person, and ask for a paper ballot.

Voting in person and asking for a paper ballot will not prevent your vote from getting "lost" as it is being recorded by the optical scanner onto a memory card, as the memory card is switched with another, or when the memory card is fed into a central tabulator programmed to reallocate the votes.

Don't vote early, or on the day of the election, because WHEN you vote has no bearing on the fact that your vote can be stolen.

Don't Vote Absentee because absentee ballots are as easily stolen as paper ballots cast at the polls on the day of the election.

Don't Vote by Touch Screen or on paper ballots that will be "counted" by computers that can undetectably steal your vote.

In fact, if you're tired of people you cannot hold accountable, making decisions that are not in your interests, DON'T VOTE. 

Voting is the way that governments gain the consent of the governed so that they can claim to be democratically elected legitimate governments with the support of their citizens. 

Our Constitution does not allow us to vote directly for President or Vice-President and leaves the final say in Presidential and Congressional races up to Congress (or the Supreme Court). In both 2000 and 2004, Bush was sworn in BEFORE the votes were counted. Afterwards, as people debated who had actually gotten how many votes, it was much too late to do anything about it anyway, as only Congress has the power to impeach a President, we do not. 

This year the President will also be "elected" and sworn into office BEFORE the popular vote is counted. The popular vote is meaningless, symbolic, and irrelevant to the outcome of elections. 

There will be a lot of voter suppression and election fraud this year, the same way that there usually is. And while people are busily documenting, analyzing, litigating, publicizing, and debating the results, Congress will already have decided who is to be President without bothering to count the popular votes, the way they always do. 

The Constitution gave them that power and you confirm it every time you vote. 

Do you think that the people in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court are the best qualified people to make decisions that will govern your life? I don't care who you are, if you are reading this, you are better qualified to balance a budget than they are. They vote in their best interests, not yours, and you vote to allow them to continue to vote in their best interests rather than yours.

They may pretend to listen to you, or even actually listen to you once in a while, if they choose to, but that choice is up to them. They don't have to and you can't make them. Unlike a democracy where the people have power over government, in the U.S. people do not have power over government. We can plead with government to represent us and we can express our anger at the when they do not, but we do not have the power to FORCE them to represent us. We can't even force them to count our votes before installing a President or Member of Congress. 

And we think that we are free? 

Don't Vote! -- it only encourages 'em. If elections could change anything, they'd be illegal. If you vote to allow them to continue stealing your money and wrecking the economy, you can't complain when that's exactly what they do.

 

 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 12:32:12 AM
 

I agree with most of your sentiment, Mark

However, Vote-by-Mail here in Oregon -- all absentee ballots, all the time -- works so well that I am suspicious of anyone who opposes or disdains it.

Especially as the ones agitating against Vote-by-Mail, with its paper-trail balloting, more eligible voters voting, and avoiding the bottleneck of herding everyone to vote in a single day, is always the rightwing totalitarian-types who shout for its repeal.  Almost as if its a badge of some distinction (ignorance? bigotted hate?) to oppose improved balloting.

Republicans -- oops, I guess the rightwing's new brandname is GOP ... so Palin can spell it -- are all opposed to Vote-by-Mail now, after they were for it to begin with.  That's how Vote-by-Mail got started in Oregon -- for two elections the State GOP paid the postage to mail absentee ballots to all and only registered GOP voters.  Who returned their ballots in much higher percentage than the percentage of them who had ever, historically, gone in person to polling places to vote, mingling with the riff-raff 'public' class of people.

When it worked so well for the big postage spenders, a wide majority of Oregonians then wanted their own ballot convenience in the mail.  And corrupted balloting decreased.

 

When it worked for them, they were for it.  Now Vote-by-Mail works better for the general electorate, elected Republicans are dwindling, and the ones shouting loudest to Stop the Fairness of Everyone Voting, is always the GoonOP's in the crowd.

Or mercenary trolls on blogs.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 525 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM
 

Re: I agree with most of your sentiment, Mark

I'm not a mercenary. I've never received a cent for anything I've done in the field of elections or election reform. In fact, like most election-integrity activists, I'm supporting my "habit" with my own funds. No, I'm just a techie with a moderate amount of common sense who nonetheless believes in fair elections (even if my side loses).

Elections are the bedrock of our democracy. They should not be at the mercy of mishaps that skew the results.

Consider the following:

· The longer the path from the voter to the counting, the greater the opportunity for mishaps. (Might your ballot wind up in the mangled-mail bin?)

· The more hidden the processing, the greater the likelihood of mishaps, including ones that go undetected and/or uncorrected.

· There are billions of dollars at stake in national elections.

· Hacking is now a full-fledged, mature industry.

Add up those facts, and what do you have? Increasing imprecision in assessing the will of the electorate. Plus the opportunity--and the irresistable temptation--for some people to "tweak" our elections.

In an ideal world, I'd tout mail-in ballots, machine voting, even Internet voting. In the real world, people who use those options are just rolling the dice--and they might be loaded. (The dice, not the voter. ;)

Optical scanners are computers and are prone to similar ailments. But if the choice is between voting on a ballot that will be optically scanned, vs. not voting at all, I'll pick the former. Why? Because it offers a chance that my voice will be heard, whereas not-voting absolutely guarantees that my voice will not be heard.

by Roy Lipscomb (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 3:16:25 PM
 

I'll be following the author's advice

and at the same time follow Mark E. Smith's advice.

My only chance to vote is by absentee ballot. I tried that avenue a couple of times and sadly discovered it is futile. 

As an American, I am free. Free to abstain and free to take leave. f*ck with my freedoms and I'll react the same way our forefathers reacted. I went out of my way and incurred extra expenses to be able to cast absentee ballots, and I followed them up with personal investigations as to how far those ballots actually went, only to be told they were well kept under lock and key until they were needed. If there is no very close tie, those ballots will not be needed. That is what I was told. And I have every reason to believe it. This year, I'm going to refrain from participating. I can, morally speaking no longer lend my voice to the legitimacy voting gives this corrupt system.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 1:11:03 PM
 

Selfish and inconsiderate?

Meremark wrote:

However, Vote-by-Mail here in Oregon -- all absentee ballots, all the time -- works so well that I am suspicious of anyone who opposes or disdains it.

Unfortunately, in a top-down system, it is the top of the ticket that matters the most. For example, if a President starts wars that bankrupt the country, no matter how decent and concerned State and local officials may be, there will be no money for them to accomplish anything.

Since only 80% of our votes are counted secretly by computers, that means that 20% of the votes might be counted accurately. But not necessarily, as there are plenty of ways that elections officials can discard, void, or substitute paper ballots. 

So the 20% who have reason to believe that their votes might be counted accurately, don't seem to care about the 80% whose votes are NOT likely to be counted accurately, despite knowing that 20% of the votes cannot determine the results of an election. It is as if people are saying that as long as THEIR personal vote is counted, they don't care what the outcome of the election is or what it means for the future of our country. In my view, that appears to be selfish and inconsiderate.

Roy Lipscomb wrote:

Optical scanners are computers and are prone to similar ailments. But if the choice is between voting on a ballot that will be optically scanned, vs. not voting at all, I'll pick the former. Why? Because it offers a chance that my voice will be heard, whereas not-voting absolutely guarantees that my voice will not be heard.

Oh, your voice will be heard, Roy. It will be heard as a voice saying, "I hereby accept and will vote in elections where my vote may not be counted accurately, because I prefer that my vote be counted for the candidate I voted AGAINST than that it not be counted at all."

Tony Forest cared enough about his vote to follow up and find out whether it was actually counted. When he learned that it was not, he stopped voting. When citizens are concerned enough about their vote to follow up and find out if it was counted for or against the candidates that they selected, or if the candidates were sworn in BEFORE the popular vote was even counted (as in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections), they may have the common sense to stop voting also.

Or, like the people I've asked everywhere that I've gone including a poll here on opednews, they may insist that they hold their right to vote to be precious and will continue to vote even if the only federally approved voting mechanism was a flush toilet. Such people do not understand the meaning of democracy and are not yet ready for self-governance. They don't know that there is a difference between a vote that is counted and a vote flushed down the toilet--as long as they can vote, they're perfectly happy. And so is Congress. 

In a democracy or a republic with honest elections, Roy, a vote is more than just a ballot cast and then discarded or miscounted. It constitutes an actual voice in government. A voice in government is one of the most valuable things known to man. An uncounted or miscounted vote is NOT a voice in government, and it is therefore worthless. 

Imagine that you have a microphone, Roy, and it is hooked up to a device that mutes your voice and substitutes a different one. So when you speak into the microphone and say, "Yes!" what people hear is a woman's voice saying, "No!"  You can keep screaming, "Yes!" into that microphone over and over as long as you wish. But what will be heard is still that woman's voice saying, "No!" That's our electoral system. If you really want your voice to be heard, I suggest you get a microphone that works as intended, because as long as you use a rigged microphone, your voice will be heard but it will be saying the opposite of what you said and it will not even be recognizable as being your voice.

 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 5:00:33 PM
 

Obama

is pushing Vote by mail. I was approached by his worker(can't really prove he was an Obama worker, however) that had me fill out a card so I could vote by mail. Now is it a repub in disguise trying to get me to vote by mail? Or is it a real Obama worker that is trying to get me to vote by mail? I haven't sent the vote by mail in and I have but 3 days to do it. Hmmm, and when I woke up this morning, I said, Am I up, or am I down, and I asked is good really evil and evil really good? Is Satan better than God? Or is God better than Satan? Or do either of them really even effin exist?

SO many doubts and so little time. I'm literally cluster*^#%#~ about voting now. SHoot, I'm even thinking about changing the WHO I vote for. OMG, what a rippin mess.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 438 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 7:17:46 PM
 

Even optical scanners can be messed-with.

Look at the videos of the NH Primary Recount which are on www.blackboxvoting.org.
The only way I can see that there can be fair elections is with a ballot box, paper ballots, and counting of ballots done IN PUBLIC by as many people of fiercely opposed political views as care to participate. Since HAVA shoved electronic voting machines down our throats, seems to me we have to do parallel, unofficial voting as described above just outside the polling places, as a double-check. We might have a vague idea as to whether the vote-counting was valid or not based on the number of people complaining about anomalies and so forth, but the above should give the closest idea as to what the numbers should be. Unless someone can think up a better system.

by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 141 comments) on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 8:25:21 PM