It is time for a real, national debate on HR 550. While behind the scenes
negotiations have been going on in Congress, rustling up sponsors, the nation as
a whole understands little about electronic voting: neither how it works (or
doesn't) or what remedies are proposed to fix it. That is partly a function of
a derelict national press and partly due to a lack of political leadership on
either side to deal with the issue. As a result, the average person senses
something is wrong but doesn't have access to the myriad reports put out since
2004, nor, even if they have access, a basic understanding of what they mean.
With Rob Kall's blessing, I propose a full, extensive debate bringing together
'experts' on all sides of the electronic voting issue. OpEdNews will provide
the forum. All I request is: civility to all participants (no personal
attacks) and, most important, an honest attempt to explain things (concepts,
terms, etc.) in a way that non-experts can understand and educate themselves on
the subject. That has been a glaring hole in the voting integrity movement:
getting the masses interested and involved. It is simply not enough for
experts to talk only to themselves. If we can fill that hole, we can take a
first step towards creating the groundswell of public support necessary to
mobilize for change.
Let us agree that none of us benefit from corrupted elections. All of us and
democracy as a whole gain from free, fair, verifiable, transparent and secure
elections
that all citizens can be confident in. With that in mind, you may submit your
articles directly to opednews.com. Make sure to select "election reform hr 550"
under the subject headings and all of the offerings will be gathered together
for easier reading.
concerns. Feel free to comment on any submission. There is room for that at the
end of each article, op ed piece. My goal is for a cyber town hall meeting
which engages the interest and attention of as many of our fellow citizens as
possible. This can only be viewed as a win-win situation.
I also request that, as much as possible, those finding fault with hr 550 (and
other proposals, for that matter) identify specific problems and make concrete
suggestions about ways to improve upon them.
These are the ground rules. I'm sure that they will evolve as we go. In the
meantime, gather your most cogent arguments and let's begin!
