Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
  3
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon
  27
Tell A Friend
  2
32 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

NH recounts no check and balance for its privatized corporate-controlled elections

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (8 fans)

opednews.com

Nearly 90% of NH votes are counted IN SECRET by a private corporation with a criminal history, criminal personnel, and partisan ties. The State of NH has approved the outsourcing of our elections, in clear violation of the NH Constitution, which states that vote counting must be observable, and in violation of the concept of "non-delegable governmental functions. This legally binding principle is outlined in the Office of Budget and Management Policy Letter 92-1, as quoted below the video at bottom of this article.

The State, and other defenders of these violations, makes the claim that privatizing the vote count on election night is okay because NH allows for manual recounts of its paper ballots. This argument is flawed on so many levels it would take a policy paper to lay it out for you. Suffice to say that the NH Constitution mandates open vote counting for elections. Period. It makes no reference to recounts. And the principle of non-delegable governmental functions similarly offers no loophole for privatization of critical functions as long as you have a public back up plan.

And lastly, and most importantly, NH has virtually no secure and publicly observable chain of ballot custody to guarantee the integrity of the vote count in a recount. So a fraudulent privatized vote count on election day can easily be backed up by a fraudulent vote count in a recount. In fact, the NH recount is so flawed that the Department of State takes measures to intimidate citizen observers and to ensure the chain of ballot custody is kept under the cover of darkness using police dogs to keep the public at bay.

Why do NH citizens put up with this?

Take a look at the 2008 NH recount, replete with police dogs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwovSqXWKQ8

OMB POLICY LETTER 92-1

Purpose. This policy letter establishes Executive Branch policy relating to service contracting and inherently governmental functions. Its purpose is to assist Executive Branch officers and employees in avoiding an unacceptable transfer of official responsibility to Government contractors.

Definition. As a matter of policy, an "inherently governmental function" is a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by Government employees. These functions include those activities that require either the exercise of discretion in applying Government authority or the making of value judgments in making decisions for the Government. Governmental functions normally fall into two categories: (1) the act of governing, i.e., the discretionary exercise of Government authority, and (2) monetary transactions and entitlements.

An inherently governmental function involves, among other things, the interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States so as to:

(a) bind the United States to take or not to take some action by contract, policy, regulation, authorization, order, or otherwise;

(b) determine, protect, and advance its economic, political, territorial, property, or other interests by military or diplomatic action, civil or criminal judicial proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;

(c) significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;

(d) commission, appoint, direct, or control officers of employees of the United States; or

(e) exert ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or disposition of the property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, of the United States, including the collection, control, or disbursement of appropriated and other Federal funds.

 

https://www.youtube.com/handsonelections

Nancy Tobi is best known as a national leader in the voting rights movement for her seminal work exposing the dangers and fallacies in various election reform efforts past, present and future. Nancy is co-founder and former Chair of Democracy for (more...)
 
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

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.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

NH recounts no check and balance for its privatized corporate-controlled elections

Summary of the Stimulus bill - Don't look half bad to me

NH Secretary of State: "Citizen Election Observers Threaten Election Integrity"

The Myth of Verified Voting: How GOP strategists & J. Abramoff transformed America's elections & the reform movement

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

The Gasser

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

As you know, it's specifically prohibited by t... by Mark Adams on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:11:56 PM
And not just for New Hampshire. Much of what Nancy... by Bev Harris on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:36:21 PM