Can Democracy coexist with scanners counting votes?
Jerry Partain raises a good question: Aren't we being taken for fools? (Sept. 30). On Aug. 25, this paper covered the results of a recent Zogby poll showing 92 percent of Americans believe we have a right to know and see how our votes are counted. Why, then, does Humboldt County use optical scanners containing "interpreter code"? This type of computer programming obscures the public's view of the vote-counting process by scrambling all of our ballot information into Diebold's proprietary language, called AccuBasic.
Isn't it foolish to put blind trust in Diebold's "interpretation" of the results, when the California secretary of state, the Government Accountability Office and independent computer scientists have all published reports explaining exactly how to hack the machines and change election results without leaving a trace of evidence?
Isn't it foolish for Humboldt County to do business with Diebold, a company that employs felons convicted of computer fraud, makes partisan donations and statements and faces at least six class action lawsuits filed by its own shareholders alleging fraud?
Isn't it foolish to aggregate precinct vote totals using the GEMS central tabulator program labeled as a national security threat by the Department of Homeland Security?
Isn't it foolish for the media to report election results as fact without questioning or verifying the information provided by only one source - the very same government whose grip on power is at stake?
Isn't it foolish to believe that Democracy can coexist with secret vote-counting?
Yes, as Partain says, we are being taken as fools. But worse, we are acting the part. Government (and media) legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed. Isn't it foolish for the 92 percent of us who know better to consent to such election conditions?
We must count the ballots by hand, the most transparent, secure and verifiably accurate way to conduct an election. Isn't it foolish to assign legitimacy to any government that prefers counting votes in secret?
No fooling - if this letter is published, an annotated version will appear at wedonotconsent.blogspot.com with links to support every claim above.
Here is the permalink: (where you will see the letter with supporting documentation)