The False Dichotomies by Dems and Their Public-Advocy Supporters to Prop Up the Holt Bill...

[BradBlog]

The False Dichotomies Being Used by Democrats and Their Public-Advocacy Group Supporters to Prop Up the Failings of the Holt Election Reform Bill
Misrepresentation of the 'Opposition', Fear of Failure, and a Bizarre, Unsubstantiated 'Civil Rights' Argument All Employed to Avoid Legitimate Debate on the Dangers of the Pending Legislation...

...I'll share some of what I've learned over the past several weeks via my personal investigations into why the Democrats who support the bill, along with their closely-allied public advocacy groups, are currently unable or unwilling to show the necessary courage to insist upon the banning of disenfranchising, failed DRE/touch-screen voting system technology from all American elections.

The inability, or unwillingness, of such groups to stand up and call for what most know to be the right thing is occurring despite the fact that most of those groups actually agree --- and will admit privately, if not always publicly --- that DRE technology has no place in our electoral system and is a grave menace to true Electoral Integrity...

FULL STORY, THE THREE FALSE DICHOTOMIES:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4163

[kster]

1. Dre's getting banned is as important as

there not being any restrictions on the % of the "scanned ballots" that can be hand counted by concerned citizens.

[bleever]

2. The best way to continue a problem

is by controlling the "solution".

K&R.

[In Truth We Trust]

3. Hand Counted Paper Ballots! Nothing more and Nothing less!

[Kurovski]

4. Kick.(nt)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. thats sending a strong message to the vendors

Nothing like Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[diva77]

6. Brad, I support your effort to terminate DRE's 100%. I also would like to

suggest more uniform language for part of your discussion --


in the following quote from your well-thought out post at

http://www.bradblog.com/? ,p=4163

"Optical-scan systems, while also presenting their own security and accuracy concerns, could easily and (fairly) safely be used with publicly-disclosed source code and a mandatory random hand-audit protocol of a sufficient number of ballots to achieve 99% scientific certainty that the reported results of any optically-scanned election are correct."

...wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to the "random hand-audit" as a "partial HCPB" -- that way people will understand that they feel most comfortable when their votes are able to be hand counted - whether partially or 100%. A random hand-audit is merely a subset of HCPB and the same security protocols would have to apply whether you are talking about a partial HCPB or full HCPB

[BeFree]

7. Good point, diva

If we are to be burdened with opscans then what we need is language that includes HCPB to a large degree in the system. Your language needs to be considered.

And thanks to Brad for opening up this whole new can of worms. He's a dependable sort, eh?

[diva77]

8. yup...

...can always count on Brad to get in the thick of it! :patriot: