A paradigm shift? Repub strategist Mike Murphy on MTP: "Dems anxious to beat Bush AGAIN."

[Fly by night]

Calling all serious ER/DUers and other DUers who support election integrity:

Let me propose, for your Sunday's consideration, an observation. I believe we may be entering a new phase in the election fraud debate. Having been here on this Board for over three years now, I think our deliberations have helped chart that emerging dialogue. I think we have moved, in the past three years, from outrage at our suspicions of tampered elections to documenting (in exquisite detail) the evidence for that election fraud. That well-linked and well-documented corpus of knowledge brought many of us (and our dialogue) to a search for solutions, both at the national level and (when we learned where the rubber really met the road) to our states and local communities. That effort, which has continued unabated in some of our states for several years now, has reaped abundant election reform fruit in the past year.

I started another thread this week about the passage of our TN Voter Confidence Act and appreciated the feedback and comments from you guys. In retrospect, I think the most important thing the media picked up was my declaration that the "debate" about DRE voting was over. Here's the quote (from our public radio station that was picked up by AP):

“Even though the bill allows counties until 2010 to implement it, our position is, the near-unanimity of support for this bill (88-6 in our House and 32-0 in our Senate) suggests that there’s no controversy, that paperless voting machines never had a place in our elections in this country.”

We intend to take that position into our continuing efforts to implement paper ballots/audits sooner rather than later. And taking the rhetorical position (that ALL of us can and should be taking at this point in this battle) that there is no longer any question that paperless DREs have no place in the voting booth is both empowering and an acknowledgement of a new era in this effort -- our era -- the re-ascendancy of the (d)emocrats.

And then, this morning, I heard other evidence for what I think is a shift in our national conversation about the reality of election fraud as evidenced in the two (p)Residencies of Duh-bya, our boy Boy. Watching MTP, I had the chance to hear and see Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, say that at this moment, the Democrats "... were raring and anxious to beat George Bush AGAIN." (Not "run" against Bush again -- we want to BEAT him AGAIN.) His statement was neither objected to nor challenged by Russert or anyone else on the panel, including Mike Huckabee.

Though it was only a moment, I wonder if it was a telling one. I wonder whether, in our awakening of America to the threats to our election process, we have also helped move them toward that awful realization that, in the end, we the people were not responsible for Bush and his excesses. In the end, I think many of us are coming to realize that our national "sin" was not in ever electing Bush, but in allowing him to serve two illegitimate terms without rising up en masse.

To end this wordy but optimistic OP this morning, I'd love to hear from those of you who have riden along with me on this journey toward election integrity to weigh in, particularly those of you who have served as ER News daily thread editors ('cause you have followed the evolution of our issue closer than most). I think there may be something viral going on right now, because of the influence of "Hacking Democracy", "UNCOUNTED", "Stealing America: Vote by Vote" and other media which have exposed more Americans to what we've known all this time about the mechanics of election fraud, coupled with the burgeoning evidence for functional incompetence and moral incontinence that Bush represents. I am heartened by what I see is a growing awareness that the "consent of the governed" was only the first quaint Constitutional cornerstone that these thugs discarded.

I think the tin-foil hat is on another set of heads these days -- the heads of any ignorant, lazy, gullible or complicit people who still profess to trust DREs and the heads of the "dead-enders", those delusional few who still believe that Bush ever earned the consent of the governed.

I know our efforts for election integrity are a long way from accomplishment. But this morning, in light of what we've done in the Orange State this week and in light of what I'm hearing, even from the barnacled chairs of the corpulent media, I can really see how far we've come and how much WE'VE accomplished. I'd love your comments and reactions to whether (or not) you're seeing some of the same good signs, from your perspective.

My baseball cap is off this morning to all y'all. Keep up the good work.

The Garden beckons....

[kevinmc]

1. yeah I picked up that "Again" , n/t

[tbyg52]

2. Stealing America: Vote by Vote

Turns out to be rather hard to come by (I've been looking). Found a source for this and other things:
http://www.solarbus.org/store/election.shtml
In case anyone else wants a copy.

[bleever]

3. From "conspiracy theory" to "common knowledge".

It's been a long, hard road, and we're not done, but we sure have come a tremendous distance.

Here's to you, Fly by night, and everyone else who has made a difference.

:toast:

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. I think this is dangerously wrong

Of course, I hope I'm wrong about the danger, at least. I think you're right about the momentum against paperless DREs, although obviously there is still a lot of work left to do.

Do you really think you heard a Republican strategist admit on TV that Bush lost in 2004, and everyone there agreed? I think that makes no sense at all. I think everyone interpreted Murphy as saying what he probably meant, something along the lines of 'the Democrats want to run against Bush again because they are confident they can beat him -- but he isn't running.' Even if you think Bush lost in 2004, it seems like a big stretch to posit that a Republican strategist knows it for a fact, but managed to avoid blurting it out until now, and everyone there went along with it because they agree, although none of them has ever blurted it out either.

Have you been running around Tennessee referring to "those delusional few who still believe that Bush ever earned the consent of the governed"? How did that talking point work for you?

[Fly by night]

6. The "delusional few" surface here like clockwork.

You question what I heard, though you did not hear it. It is easier (and more congruent with your unwavering "move along" worldview) for you to put words in Murphy's mouth that he did not speak.

You question what we've done in Tennessee, though it appears you don't know what we've done. Please read this OP and comment there, if you'd like. I see you haven't so far.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x502624

There are a few "dead-enders" here who have questioned the evidence for a stolen election ad nauseum. That seems their purpose, that and undermining our effort by continuing to plant dissension in the media. (I'm thinking about your efforts in Utah to disparage the messenger, thereby questioning the message, of election fraud. It may have disappointed you that I didn't get sucked into your effort there.) Fortunately, their numbers are dwindling, here and elsewhere.

As far as Murphy's comment, I expect it was a Freudian slip. But for him to say it and for no one on the panel (including Russert) to correct him, was a pleasant surprise on a Sunday morning. A moment that even Rethug legislators in TN are beginning to accept.

One-trick ponies -- a dime a dozen.

Working hard to accomplish election reform in each of our states because our elections are being manipulated already -- priceless.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. unfortunately, misrepresenting me will not solve the underlying problem

I read the transcript, which is sufficiently close to the words you cited that I assume we're reacting to essentially the same words. I pointed out why I believe your interpretation doesn't make sense. Your compulsion to personalize the disagreement speaks for itself.

I'm well aware of events in Tennessee, which is why I thought my question was pertinent. Have you gone around Tennessee campaigning against DREs by saying that only a delusional few think Bush won? Or do you save that for partisan venues? Whatever you say here can be used against all of us anywhere, so it behooves you to choose your words carefully.

But you will not hear this from me, so I hope you hear it from others.

[Fly by night]

8. Since you're aware of what has happened in TN, you should also be aware ...

... that one of our most successful mobilizing strategies has been to arrange for showings of "UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections" to large and small groups, followed by discussions of what the viewers can do now to protect our votes. That film presents very compelling evidence (to most of the rest of us) that our elections -- including Bush's 2004 "win" (sic) -- have been manipulated to ignore the consent of the governed. So yes, we have used the argument that paperless electronic voting is a clear and present danger -- a danger that has already subverted democracy -- to great effect here.

I don't mind my words being used anywhere at any time. If you notice, my OP asked a question: "a paradigm shift?" because I wanted to encourage others to comment on whether we are witnessing such a shift or not. I appreciate the feedback, including yours (though you seem incapable of posting a response in a non-snarky manner).

But I'm not sure what about you I've misrepresented. Was it your efforts to get the Utah media to stop listening to election reform folks out there (confusing, in the process, criticizing some of our messengers with weakening our message)? I didn't fall into that trap when a Utah reporter called me (at your instigation) in hopes I would pile on too. The upshot of that attempt by you was that I re-directed the reporter to the UNCOUNTED director and to Bruce Funk, with the result that more media coverage and more showings of that film in Utah resulted.

Thanks for that (really). Just don't include me in any of your future efforts to weaken our election reform efforts. Perhaps you could re-direct your energies to convincing all TV networks to abandon exit polls entirely because of their "notorious unreliability" (your persistent sentiments, not mine). I see you've made no headway on that score.

I wonder why?

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. I am willing to discuss the evidence if you like

My reference group is different than yours. People who come to Uncounted probably tend to have a predisposition already. When they hear John Conyers say that "nearly all the experts" agree that the exit polls couldn't have been so far off, they may be inclined to believe it. But I cannot believe it, because I actually know experts, and I am accountable to them as part of a professional community. John Conyers has been misinformed.

Reality is not adjudicated by majority opinion, whether of moviegoers, DUers, or "experts." Reality bats last; we are accountable to reality, not vice versa.

My detailed comments on Uncounted appear at http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/uncounted-review.pdf , in case you are interested in engaging my actual opinions. Naturally, I frankly resent your unsupported assertions about attempts to weaken election reform efforts. This is unlike you.

If showing Uncounted has helped to strengthen efforts against DREs, I will take the good along with the bad, especially since I have no choice. I would have preferred a factually accurate movie.

I made no effort to "get the Utah media to stop listening to election reform folks out there." A reporter asked what I thought of Kathy Dopp, and I told her; in the course of that conversation, I told her that DREs were inherently unreliable. The context, as I assume you know, is that Dopp was raging against a group of people who, ironically, largely agreed with her recommendations. I have no idea how you formed the view of this that you did, but you ought to check your facts. I do know that telling the truth about Kathy Dopp rarely ends well, but you of all people should know better.

I use exit polls -- I have no desire to persuade the networks to abandon them entirely. Here, again, you seem to be conversing with a phantom of your own creation.

(edit to correct formatting)

[Fly by night]

10. Here's a start. Thanks for the link to your comments about UNCOUNTED.

You should have posted them here as an OP, to allow this interested audience to see how you reviewed that movie. But then, you don't seem to post OPs very often. I've gone back through five pages, back to March 2, and cannot find a single Op from you. Why is that? (Your last response suggests that we are beneath your level of discussion. The hubris of that attitude, the "depth" of your involvement in this ER/DU community, even your nom de plume here, continues to speak volumes.)

In terms of the evidence, that has also been a recent discussion among our TN group in the run-up to our bill being signed. I have just laid out for our TN group what brought me to the table after 2004 to devote (too) much of my life to election reform. You are welcome to comment on this memo, if you'd like.

As far as your behavior vis a vis Kathy Dopp, I will work in the Garden a while before I post my feelings on that score. I don't have anything nice to say to you right now on that.

Now here's why I showed up in the ER forum, and why I've stayed here:

------
To my TN election integrity colleagues:

Thanks for your response to my DU posting that I copied to all y'all over the weekend. I thought twice about posting it, because I have no idea just how broad the reach of our listserv is. Acting on the belief that I still know most of the people here, however, I thought it might provoke comment and discussion here. It certainly has at DU, on a thread that might continue to percolate for a while.

I also agree that our most successful line of argument (with the legislature and others) has been to use the volumes of evidence for the malfunctions, vote-flipping, inefficiencies, hardware and software meltdowns, security risks, unverifiability, etc. etc. of the paperless DREs. There is value in keeping the debate on a level which has allowed maximum participation and support for our proposed reforms.

At the same time, I think our mobilizing efforts have, in recent months and to great effect, included as many screenings of UNCOUNTED (as well as "gifts" of the DVD to our officials and others) as we could muster. That film (in no uncertain terms and in no small measure due to our efforts at gathering the evidence via our conference) speaks to the reams of hard evidence for tampered-with elections. So, on the one hand, our "theoretical" position has carried us far, even though the bellies of many who have jumped aboard our cause were fueled by UNCOUNTED and related information, from a growing host of sources.

For that reason (and in the lull before our bill passes -- I still hope), I wanted to share -- briefly -- the evidence that convinced me back in late 2004 to become involved in this movement. I also want to encourage others to do the same thing -- what motivated you folks to dedicate large pieces of your lives to election reform these last few years? At the same time, Phil, I would like you to tell me what kind of evidence you would accept as "direct" proof of election fraud, in either past or future elections?

One preface to my list. As all of you know, I helped set up and run the state AIDS program in Tennessee from 1987 to 1990 (before going on to CDC for more AIDS-related research). By the time I started this work, the medical complex we now know as AIDS had been identified for five years, and 100,000+ people had been diagnosed and reported to CDC -- all without any direct evidence for the presence of the pathogen which caused the disease, as measured by laboratory procedures. We had to rely on a mix of reported risk behaviors, medical conditions and indirect laboratory evidence (decreased T4 cells) to posit the presence of the HIV virus. So, professionally, I am accustomed to using indirect evidence, particularly evidence that triangulates so well, to paint a coherent picture. Having said all that, here is some of the evidence that I accept in my belief that the 2004 Presidential race was stolen (as well as other races before and since):

1) I believe the "exit poll/reported vote discrepancy" researchers, for whom this evidence is the "world's loudest alarm bell". It rang pretty loud for me on the day after the 2004 election.

2) I believe Clint Curtis.

3) I believe that the widespread, multi-state reporting from voters who experienced or witnessed vote-flipping or their votes erased in 2004 (95%+ of whom reported a "flipped" outcome that favored Bush) is evidence for a non-random, systemic "glitch" epidemic with the DREs.

4) I believe the voting machine companies -- by their professed partisan leanings; their documented track record for fraud, contract violations and violations of election law over the past decade; and by the fundamentally flawed nature of their machines' design, manufacture and performance -- could not have been better positioned to assist and abet election fraud if they were housed at the RNC.

5) I believe the five lawsuits (to date) in Tennessee that have alleged both theoretical and real-world examples of the problems with this equipment have abundant legal standing, based (in some cases) on the evidence for the manipulation of that equipment here.

6) Congressman Bob Ney (R-Cellblock 10) supported paperless DREs and prevented the Holt bill from receiving a hearing, even with 150+ co-sponsors. I look forward to hearing him tell us why, when he is released from federal prison sometime in the next year or so.

7) I believe the Election Center is the devil's spawn; and the relationship between Brook Thompson, TN election officials, that vendor-funded operation and its chief Poobah, R. Doug Lewis, is evidence of a long-term, coordinated indoctrination effort that impacted TN's (wrong) voting machine purchase decisions, as well as the (wrong) decisions of many other states. When Fortune magazine chose DREs as the "worst new technology" of 2003, how could the Election Center have gotten it so wrong for so long?

8) I believe Mary Beth Kuznik, Warren Stewart, Judy Alter, Joanne Roush and Richard Hays Phillips (among many others).

9) I believe Bruce Funk.

10) I believe Steve Heller.

11) I have seen Brook Thompson (TN's state election coordinator) standing in front of a mirror. However, I have not seen his reflection.

(OK, nine out of ten isn't bad.)

That's enough to start with, and I'm sure I'm leaving many things out that support my firm belief that our elections can be manipulated, because they have been. I applaud whatever mix of motives brought the rest of you here. For those of you who've read this far, I'd love for you to weigh in on any aspect of this post, and Phil's earlier one.

I appreciate all y'all. Now back to the Garden.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. OK

"Your last response suggests that we are beneath your level of discussion."

Who are "we"? Who is guilty of hubris here, anyway?

I don't understand certain people's conviction that I ought to post more OPs. I post considerable original content; I am hardly a free rider. Moreover, the people who complain that I should post OPs are the same people who complain about what I do post, so it's sort of hard to take the criticism seriously.

I came to DU back in the spring of 2005 because Febble was receiving IMO a most appalling McCarthyite roughing up, and I thought that people might be interested in hearing another side of the story. OnTheOtherHand seemed like a pretty natural name for someone who looks for both sides. If you look around at the political science profession, you will see that I have spent more time looking at all sides of election fraud arguments than the vast majority of my colleagues. I said more kind words about Uncounted in that review than most of us will ever say words.

I'm disappointed that you have now had at me three times about Utah, but still haven't stated what you are angry about.

As for levels of discussion: you write that you "believe the 'exit poll/reported vote discrepancy' researchers." OK, why don't you believe http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/InterimReport122204-1.pdf">Brady, Charles, Highton, Kropf, Mebane and Traugott? Exchanging credos is not my idea of discussion.

I've never contested that "our elections can be manipulated." I believe, at least in part, many of the same people you say you believe. If you intend to disagree with me, but you don't address my actual arguments -- well, again, who is guilty of hubris?

But this thread never should have been about me to begin with. I thought it was a bad idea for election integrity leaders to ridicule anyone who thinks that Bush won. I still do. I think you probably know better, but based on whatever you think you know about me, you won't let me be the one to call you on it. Fine.

[BeFree]

14. FlyBy.....

As it seems to me, OTOH's problem in a nutshell is that he hasn't won the argument yet: he thinks he knows how the votes are/were counted, but he hasn't convinced many people of his view. And apparently he thinks it is partly TIA's fault. And he's right.

But mainly it his own fault. In his own words on another thread:

<sub>Moreover, in understanding why we have so few of them, I can find little empirical warrant for invoking doubts about the accuracy of the machines.

To which I reply: Really? How about Sarasota 06? Carteret County, NC, 04? Pottawattime, Iowa? Each of those instances demonstrate beyond a doubt that the accuracy of the machines should be questioned each and every time one is plugged in.

To state as he did that he sees no reason not to trust the machines because he can't find a reason not to, is beyond incredible. One simply has to doubt anything he claims after reading such utterances.

He may publiclly retract his words and eat crow, or repent and be baptized (lol). But I expect nothing more than that he twists his own words in a desperate attempt to cover his ass, again.</sub>

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. hey, BeFree, what does "them" refer to in that quotation?

I stand by what I actually wrote, which has nothing to do with Sarasota or Carteret.

[BeFree]

16. Of course not

It is evident that you disregard the facts because if you did regard the facts (like Sarasota and Carteret) then you wouldn't say there is little reason to doubt the accuracy.

"Them" is your machines that you think weren't used to steal millions of votes.

[BeFree]

17. Futhermore

Quoting Palast. Fri Feb-08-08
<sub>The Republicans aren't stealing the 2008 election by monkeying with your touch-screen vote.

The 2000 election was certainly stolen; so was the 2004 election -- but not by computer. And in 2008, they won't steal it by computer either.</sub>


Ok, by quoting Palast, it seems as OTOH argues
that computers are not used to steal elections or played no part of the theft of votes. But anyone can see that computers have stolen votes. It is precisely because the machines have been caught red-handed stealing people's votes that laws have been changed removing computers from their sole possession of the count.

If there was no doubt about the accuracy of the computers then why are computers being removed from the process? Why is a paper backup being instituted in one state after another if there is no doubt about computer's accuracy?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. flat-out wrong -- you either misread, or just don't care

Go look again.

ETA: Your other post is similarly wrong, and readers can actually watch you warping Palast's words mid-sentence.

[BeFree]

22. So.

This is what you have come down to? All you can do is claim I am wrong?

As if this were a schoolyard fight, eh?

What has happened to you? Used to be we would discuss things, but now all you do is post one-liners like the above.

I guess when you can't do much of anything else that's all we get from the likes of Mr. Hand.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. it's a statement of fact

Anyone who cares -- including you -- can read what I wrote. If you are committed to misrepresenting it, then there is nothing more I can do.

[BeFree]

24. I quoted you.

What you wrote is what you wrote. How was that wrong?

Man, I sure do miss that intellectual integrity of yours. Bwahahaha

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. OK, since you insist

Here is what you quoted:

"Moreover, in understanding why we have so few of them, I can find little empirical warrant for invoking doubts about the accuracy of the machines."

Here is what I asked you:

"hey, BeFree, what does "them" refer to in that quotation?"

Here is your answer:

"'Them' is your machines that you think weren't used to steal millions of votes."

Here is the link to what you quoted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=502197&mesg_id=502467

Here is what I wrote in full:

As to the last, I concede that I don't know how I would feel if I were a pollworker who suspected I was feeding a rigged scanner -- but I don't believe the job of a pollworker is ever meaningless. A pollworker can determine whether someone is allowed to vote or not, the circumstances under which he or she votes, whether the act of attempting to vote is treated with respect or contempt. Pollworkers are damn important. Moreover, in understanding why we have so few of them, I can find little empirical warrant for invoking doubts about the accuracy of the machines. (Probably the complexity of the machines drives away some experienced pollworkers, although from the research I've seen, this doesn't seem to be a very strong effect.) So, that's why I feel I have to "vehemently disagree."

Thus, the answer to my question is:

Pollworkers.

I quite literally cannot believe that you got this wrong. But I will accept your apology.

[BeFree]

26. Apology given

You do see tho, that your trail leaves a great deal of doubt about you wherever you go.

Now then answer this: What doubts do you have about the machines?

IOW: Can you invoke any doubts about the accuracy of the machines? If you have I haven't read such a thing. Of course, the question pertains to the loss of any election due to use of the machines. And, of course you have grave doubts about the machines, only a fool would think otherwise.

The question for you is: have the machines cost any candidate an election? Yes, or no?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. well, I see that you have a great deal of doubt about me

There doesn't seem to be much that I can do about that -- and in the end, earning BeFree's trust can't really be a priority for me, if you see what I mean. Nonetheless, I'm happy to answer your questions at least in part.

I don't archive my posts with a mind to providing proof texts, but I'm convinced that the machines cost Christine Jennings the election in Florida 13, and I have often said so. I'm not sure why they cost her the election, but the statistical evidence that it happened is very strong. I think that pushbutton DREs may have cost John Kerry the state of New Mexico; the evidence there is harder to evaluate.

Since the machines are known to be hackable and unreliable, I cannot vouch for their accuracy in any election. That doesn't mean that I have to assume they are always wrong, or that I have to accept any and all arguments that they were wrong in particular elections.

ETA: Apology accepted! We all have better things to do than to hold grudges, no?

[Wilms]

5. I think the paradigm has shifted.

Just not in that exact fashion. :evilgrin:

I didn't see the Meet The Press edition you cite, so it's unclear if the reference was 2004, 2000, or both. Perhaps, however, what was referenced was 2006. In other words, the phrase suggests the Dems winning seats as a rejection of Bush.

When it comes to the 2000 elections, I think only the most uninformed believe Bush won Florida's popular vote. The people arguing that Bush won probably know he didn't and go to great lengths to avoid acknowledging the results determined by the news service consortium that conducted the unofficial recount statewide showing Gore won.

With 2004, there wasn't much, if any, acknowledgment by corporate media.

Now however, it seems that the negative effects of Republicanism are too great to allow it to longer dominate. I hope the Dems beat BOTH Bushes, Reagan, Nixon and Goldwater for good measure.


I love the snip...

“Even though the bill allows counties until 2010 to implement it, our position is, the near-unanimity of support for this bill (88-6 in our House and 32-0 in our Senate) suggests that there’s no controversy, that paperless voting machines never had a place in our elections in this country.”


And the balance of the post got me thinkin' and writing.


Bet you enjoyed the garden.

[Bill Bored]

12. I think he simply meant that 2006 was a referendum on Bush, and Bush lost.

That's pretty obvious and I don't even watch TV!

Talk about moving on! Geez, I've got better things to do than read this thread, so I won't.

[Fly by night]

13. Last time I looked, Bush didn't run in '06.

I did think it was an interesting statement, and equally interesting was the non-reaction from the panel.

But if you've got places to go and things to do, by all means move along.

[Bill Bored]

21. I hear you and I don't know the whole context, but there were several more recent events

that this might have been referring to, esp. coming from a Repuke.

The 2006 election, a referendum on Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/11/05/GR2006110500044.html

The House seat lost to the Dems in Mississippi:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/democrats_win_miss_special_ele.html
and two others including Dennis Bastard's (the former House Speaker's) seat in IL.

And numerous other state and local elections won by Democrats.

So, in light of these more current events, I don't see how this guy could have been referring to Bush losing 2004, and I don't see how the panel would have thought so either. This EI crowd we're in is still a lot more narrowly focused than we think, and of course VERY DIVIDED.

[BeFree]

18. Congrats

Glad to see Tennessee is getting back on track.

Really good of you to offer good cheer to the long struggling here who have overcome the diebolds et al, and have succedeed in getting back a measure of respect for how our votes are managed.

Good work!

[robinlynne]

20. I wish. Unfortunately what we have uncovered is still the tip of the iceberg, and the general publi

is still completely unaware. The more we dig (and I'm in LA COunty) the more mud we find, and the harder it is to prove. When we do prove it, district attorneys choose not to act on that proof 99% of the time, maybe more. We need thousands more down here in the trenches watching the elections. DRE's are but one manifestation of a system which is totally corrupt, run by huge corporations, all the way down to the smallest details. They contniue to steal e4lcitons in hundreds of different ways, removing voters from rosters, changing addresses of polling places at the last minute, secret counting rooms hidden behind the official counting rooms... There are several hundred of us around the nation monitoring elections. There need to be several million. Democracy will happen in this country when there is large-scale pubnlic participation.

But, of course, I am glad for the positive things which have happened. But even ending paperless dre's is a drop in the bucket. (I noticed you said paperless dre's, as opposed to all privatized voting equipment of any kind. Even with paper ballots, when they are scanned by es&s scanners, then counted by a deibold tabulator, you still have no idea who chose the elction winners, since judges refuse "recounts" over and over. Even when a federal judge mandated that all Ohio 2004 presidential ballots be sealed, they were summarily destroyed and "disappeared".

And these companies are now spreading this election joy (diebold, et al) throughout the world.