Original posting here: ttp://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5561
Believe it or not, this is the NH method of "securing" the vote. The question is: for whom?
The chase continues...See the BlackBoxVoting video below (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
NH Diebold-lovers and voting machine apologists like to point to our paper ballot hand count recounts in order to rationalize outsourcing the counting of 80-90% of our votes to private corporate interests using secret vote-counting technologies.
They say, what's the problem? We can always count the paper ballots by hand in a recount.
Hmmmm...Look at what happens to the paper ballots between Election Night Diebold count and the hand count recount. Watch the videos. Do you feel the recount is secure?
Get it right on Election Night. Counting the votes is the "burden" of democracy. If our election officials and state legislators can't handle this "burden" then they ought to step down. NH Legislators, under the advise and guidance of NH Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan, this year alone killed five important bills that would have protected our elections against Diebold-controlled secret vote-counting. See below the list of bills the Election Law Committee killed, at the recommendation of the Chair of that committee.
If NH legislators and election officials at the state and local levels think we can't handle the "burden" of counting our votes, maybe it's time for them to go and make room for others who believe we need to and will do whatever it takes to protect our democracy.
Click to view video below, and scroll down to see full list of election law bills killed in Committee and by the full House in 2007.
Here are the bills the NH Election Law Committee Chair arranged to have killed:
HB136: would have required the Ballot Law Commission (BLC) to apply a standard for approval of voting technology: "Before approving any voting machine or device, the ballot law commission shall, following a public hearing, find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the voting machine or device being examined has been designed and manufactured with adequate safeguards to insure the integrity of election results."
HB138: would have required full public disclosure of voting technology information (Deputy Secretary of State Scanlan, representing industry interests rather than voter interests, argued "we can't require disclosure because the vendor won't go for it" and "we can't make drastic changes like this too quickly".
HB141: would have allowed voters to choose paper over vapor: "The use of such (voting) machines or devices so authorized shall be valid for all purposes, provided that the city or town adopts a procedure whereby each voter is given the option of bypassing the voting machine or device and having his or her paper ballot counted by an election official." Secretary Gardner in testimony supporting the bill to the legislature argued that allowing people to choose the manner of having their vote counted is an essential element of grassroots democracy, and this would allow election officials to better fulfill the will of the electorate.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).