Article: Essentials Of the Voting Systems Debate

Originally appeared at BBV.Forums I've been watching the discussion and debate about voting systems evolve. I pared it down to get the essentials, which I think are profound in their implications. 1) Without public participation and scrutiny of the election systems and processes, elections lack true meaning. 2) The use of computerized voting of any type effectively eliminates public participation and scrutiny of elections for the following reasons:

a) The vast majority of the public are not in a position to undertake such specialized scrutiny. b) The process is handed over to 'experts' hired by those in power. c) There is simply no reason to trust the experts and certainly no way to monitor them.

3) As a result of the previous point, by definition, any computerized elections remove the public from the election process thus supplanting citizens with a privileged class who are in the employ of either those in power or those contending for power. The public is cast aside. The elections lose meaning because they cannot be verified or the verification process cannot be understood except as an act of faith. The public loses faith in the actual election of its leaders and finds no reason to recognize election results and the authority those results confer on candidates. Point 2 above is critical. It shows both the source of public alienation and also the rise of a new expert class that hands down judgments that are incomprehensible to almost all involved. This is not a criticism of the experts, rather it's a call for elections that actually have meaning and are run by the people. Michael Collins ï � � Election Fraud News As Ross Perot used to say: "IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE." Permission to reprint granted