Go here to sign a petition to your National representatives to stop the secret election machinery (STOP Holt Bill HR811) and read reasoning behind it. Please forward, it is your democracy at stake.
Important Message From Paul Lehto:
Brad Friedmann, myself, Nancy Tobi and Bev Harris and Mark Crispin Miller have all dialed 811 for a debate on democracy, and all we get is a busy signal, or nobody at home. All key supporters of Holt’s bill have so far refused to debate.
Mariann Gould has properly written this up as a remarkable situation. There was even the possibility of a television deal being worked on by a person in California if David Dill would agree, but he emphatically and repeatedly refuses to debate.
Privileges come matched with duties and responsibilities. If we wish to exercise the privilege of being a key actor in changing the mechanisms of democracy, the minimal accountability of a public debate is necessary, at the very least.
Now I understand that politicians sometimes think that if they are ahead they should not give their opponents a platform such as a debate to score points with. But this situation is entirely different, because
(1) HR 811 proponents are purporting to design something FAIR to all voters, and transparent to all, not aiming to win at all costs like a political campaign, yet this is their response to the call to debate
(2) Common Cause, for example, said they would appear on Mariann Gould’s show after the markup of the bill and then after the markup they said it was too late…. What?
(3) Changing voting systems has more impact than just about any political race, yet there’s not even so much disclosure as the League of Women Voters or the state would provide for a dogcatcher’s race — with balanced views in opposition — and there won’t even be an *attempt* to do so even in a small way
(4) David Dill stated in writing to me that he’s already “won” this, and I can only wonder who voted in that election, how the votes were counted, was the computerized voting done on Dill’s personal computer and who “audited” that election victory, and how in a democracy anyone can claim to have “won” any public question at all without submitting it to the public on an informed basis so they can then inform their representatives how to vote?
(5) All of the facts regarding secret vote counting software being in the possession or control of the government are undisputed — creating a situation where we do not have guaranteed to We the People the right to throw crooked politicians out of office who are willing to cheat on e-voting, knowing that the evidence of the cheating is trade secret. There are many ways for this cheating to survive a 3% audit.
Democracy surely deserves a debate. Will any supporter of Holt agree to face me, Brad, Nancy, Bev and Mark in a debate? If not, what transparency, disclosure or arguments are they afraid will help the anti-811 position win?
PS. Just for Fun: It’s said that we’ve really got to “rush” because 2008 is coming up, in order to put a “Holt” to election fraud. But if you “rush” dialing 911 for democracy, don’t be surprised if you screw it up and get 811, instead of 911.
Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor