Election Reform, Fraud & News Wed 2/14/07 VALENTINE’S DAY EDITION

[kpete]

Election Reform, Fraud & News Wed 2/14/07 VALENTINE’S DAY EDITION

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!!!

Paper Ballots – We Can TOUCH, SEE AND FEEL!!!

NO MORE SECRETS

Secret vote counting by your enemy is tyranny.
Secret vote counting by your friend is corruption.
To even desire secret vote counting power is a corrupt desire.

Land Shark

Discovering What Democracy Means

Bill Moyers

.............Wouldn’t we have been likely to deal more effectively and quickly with pollution if we had thought about where we fit in the long sweep of the Earth’s story? Could we better tackle our spending priorities as a society if we were prepared to acknowledge and confront the pain of conflicting choices, which the ancient poets knew to be the incubus of agony and the crucible of wisdom? Might we better decide how to use our wealth and power if we have measured and tested ourselves against the greatest things a human being ever uttered? Are we not likely to be more wisely led by officials who have learned from history and literature that great nations die of too many lies?

Furthermore, if we nurtured the higher affections of our intuition—what has been called our “inner tutor”—might we be more resolute in sparing our children from the appalling accretion of violent entertainment that permeates American life—what Newsweek described as “the flood of mass-produced and mass-consumed violence that pours upon us, masquerading as amusement and threatening to erode the psychological and moral boundary between real life and make-believe?”

We know who the enemies of democracy are. In his Jefferson Lecture the late Cleanth Brooks of Yale identified them as the “bastard muses” propaganda, which pleads, sometimes unscrupulously, for a special cause or issue at the expense of the total truth; sentimentality, which works up emotional responses unwarranted by, and in excess of, the occasion; and pornography, which focuses upon one powerful human drive at the expense of the total human personality. To counter the “bastard muses,” Brooks proposed cultivating the “true muses” of the moral imagination. Not only do these arm us to resist the little lies and fantasies of advertising, the official lies of power, and the ghoulish products of nightmarish minds, they open us to the lived experience of others—to the affirmations of a heightened consciousness—to empathy. So it is that when Lear cried out to Gloucester on the heath: “You see how this world goes.....” Gloucester, who was blind, answered: “I see it feelingly.”

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/12/discovering_what_democracy_means.php

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page.

[kpete]

1. A DOCUMENTARY ON ELECTRONIC VOTING

When you vote, how do you know that your vote is recorded the way your intended?

In most democracies in the world, voting is an open process that all citizens have the right to oversee.
In the U.S., Direct Recording Electronic machines (DRE's) could replace all other ways of voting within the next few years.These machines are manufactured by private companies that own the sofware controlling all the steps of the voting process. This software cannot be examined. In most cases, there is no paper trail to verify the accuracy of the electronic system. And in many states, it is illegal to do a recount in any other way than the original computer count, even if there is a paper trail.

Can computers be trusted in elections?
In this documentary you will find the answers to your questions.

Why we use electronic voting.
Which private companies exert their control over our voting system.
Why their software cannot be trusted.
The talking points of the machine vendors.
Why the testing of the machines is totally useless.
The involvement of Defense contractors in drafting the HAVA law.
The intricate relationship between the machine vendors and the elections officials.
The role of the media in controlling the elections.
Real-life stories of people who witnessed obvious fraud.


TRAILER (4 Min.)
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkpg=http://www.therighttocount.com/main.htm&linkid=30767

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkpg=http://www.therighttocount.com/main.htm&linkid=30767

[kpete]

14. Electronic voting machines are not the way to go

Electronic voting machines are not the way to go
02/13/2007

I just finished reading Robin Lind's letter to the editor published in the Democrat on Feb. 7 entitled "Virginia voters: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'"


And frankly, Lind couldn't be more wrong.

Advertisement


Virginians, and all Americans, deserve a fair and impartial election process, one that is free from error and fraud. Touch-screen voting machines cannot accomplish this.

Apparently Lind hasn't seen the HBO documentary, "Hacking Democracy." That two-hour long expose on voting practices nationwide revealed in startling clarity how easy it was to produce fraudulent election results.

Errors and deliberate cases of fraud were revealed in districts where the majority of voters were either Democratic or Republican.

Diebold and ESS own more than 80 percent of the touch-screen voting machines used in this country, and the documentary showed how both companies produced an unreliable product.

Lind assumes that the $3 billion spent through the "Help America Vote Act" is actually going to help America vote. It will, but it won't help their votes be counted accurately.

He also mentions that all the time and effort that poll workers contribute, and he is right. Their effort is commendable. But they are not part of the problem: machines that do not produce reliable results are.

The people who created "Hacking Democracy" actually conducted a test of Diebold machines using one of their un-tampered machines, a memory card they brought with them, and with a Diebold representative present and conducting the test!

To the surprise of those present - including the Diebold rep - results had reversed themselves once the memory card was read. The results on the machine said one thing, the memory card that would have been taken to a separate site for tallying said something else.

Lind should make sure he avails himself of all the facts - and definitely before he labels those who disagree with him as "conspiracy theorists."

Richard Blackwell

Warrenton

[kpete]

2. Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes

Florida By The Numbers
Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes

Published by Greg Palast February 12th, 2007 in Articles
by Greg Palast

You like numbers?

Here’s how to estimate the effect of spoilage on the election outcome. For fun, let’s take Florida 2000. We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots “spoiled” were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming “spoiled” ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

OK, then, what about “Non-Black” voters, whose votes made up the remaining 46% of the spoilage pile? Well, frankly, you can ignore these, as these voters split their vote somewhat evenly between Gore and Bush. Sticklers wanting a closer exam would note that Gore probably won a majority of these votes as well. Moreover, the only large group of spoiled votes in a wealthy white county occurred in Palm Beach (due to “butterfly” ballots), a rare, rich white group of strongly Democratic voters.

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/#more-1574

[kpete]

3. Sequoia Voting Systems contract with San Francisco needs added section to ensure transparency

Sequoia Voting Systems contract with San Francisco needs added section to ensure transparency
by Brent Turner, Open Voting Consortium
February 13, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- Several groups concerned about the integrity of our voting systems are insisting that contract language be inserted into San Francisco's pending 12.5 million dollar contract with Sequoia Voting Systems that will enable fully public scrutiny of the voting technology. Alan Dechert of the Open Voting Consortium will be available to answer questions at 12:30 PM Wednesday 14 FEB at City Hall ( on the steps ) before the budget and finance meeting ( at 1:00 PM ).

"We insist that the Contract Provision for Public Disclosure <1> drafted by Open Voting Consortium be included in the contract. Otherwise, the contract should be rejected by the Board of Supervisors," said Alan Dechert, President of Open Voting Consortium. Secret software and secret processes have no place in the voting system. This practice must end and we feel the place and time for this to happen is here and now."

DemocracyAction, Democracy For America, California Election Protection and the San Francisco Election Integrity League will be there in support of the Open Voting Consortium.

Open Voting Consortium is a California nonprofit corporation that promotes the use of voting technology that is fully open to public scrutiny.

<1> Form Contract Provision for Public Disclosure

Section ___: Public Disclosure of Technology Required.

much more at:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2424

[kpete]

4. The Tyranny of the Minority: Jim Crow and the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty

The Tyranny of the Minority: Jim Crow and the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty

GABRIEL J. CHIN
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona Eller College of Management, School of Public Administration and Policy
RANDY WAGNER
Affiliation Unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 11, 2007

Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 07-03


Abstract:

When analyzing the consequences of and remedies for discrimination against African Americans, courts and scholars characterize African Americans as a minority. This Article shows that the traditional approach is wrong: When it mattered, when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were enacted and for decades after, African Americans were a majority or controlling plurality in the states where most lived. African American-backed majoritarian governments controlled the South after the Civil War; while in power, they enacted strong civil rights laws and created a public education system. These policies were reversed, and segregation imposed, not because African Americans were a minority, destined to lose in the majoritarian political process, but rather through elimination of democratic politics and imposition of minority rule. African Americans and their white allies were stripped of their electoral majority through fraud, violence and illegal disenfranchisement. This Article argues that the most important harm African Americans suffered was something that the law has until now overlooked: Loss of the right to control the governments of several Southern states. This injury means that current African Americans disadvantage likely rests on a constitutional violation; Jim Crow could not have happened had democracy functioned as provided in the Constitution. Consideration of African American majority status also sheds new light on the counter-majoritarian difficulty. In reviewing measures oppressing African Americans, the Court did not have to balance majority rule against minority rights; instead, majority rule and constitutional rights both militated toward invalidation of laws passed by a minority to oppress the majority.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963036

[kpete]

5. NYT: Congress and Self-Reform

Editorial
Congress and Self-Reform

Published: February 14, 2007
Taxpayers have been slowly discovering the bad, the ugly and, lately, a touch of good in Congress’s tight relations with the lobbying industry. Last November’s candidates promised all manner of reform, and the good was the enactment of a long-overdue ban on lobbyists’ currying insider clout by taking lawmakers on freebie vacations and other junkets. But the bad remains to be dealt with: the practice of lawmakers creating secondary “leadership” kitties to sock away extra money from lobbyists and other special-interest donors beyond the usual campaign committees.

What’s ugly are the crass ways members routinely press lobbyists for leadership donations — for things like $5,000 hunting and fishing trips, and a face-to-face cup of designer coffee that costs a donor $2,500. They use the money to cross-pollinate fellow politicians’ campaigns and, more and more, as a V.I.P. slush fund to pay for extra trips and other indulgences that are hardly the stuff of leadership.

Critics in Congress know the free-flowing PAC’s, as the next big scandal waiting in the wings, should be banned under campaign finance law. The leaders of the House Democratic campaign committee, in fact, have already canceled the committee’s annual ski weekend for lobbyists. Members should follow suit and ban the grossly misnamed leadership PACs as a step toward serious campaign finance reform.

“Only a moron would sell a vote for a $2,000 contribution,” said one typical House member preoccupied with fund-raising. The comment unfortunately raises the question of what more tempting price might eventually emerge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/14wed2.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[kpete]

6. FEC fines High Point association

News
Monday, February 12, 2007
FEC fines High Point association

HIGH POINT — The Federal Election Commission fined a local association last week for violating federal election laws regarding solicitation of funds for a political action committee.

In September and October 2005, Mike Pugh, a Realtor and High Point council member, filed a complaint alleging the High Point Regional Association of Realtors violated federal law by coercing and intimidating its members to give to the National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee.

The complaint alleged the group published names of those who hadn’t given in their August 2005 newsletter and on an overhead screen at its annual meeting.

The group was fined $4,500 by the FEC for not giving notice of the political purposes of the PAC and a member’s right to refuse without fear of retribution. The group also signed an agreement to discontinue this solicitation practice.

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/NEWSREC0101/70212026

[kpete]

7. U of TX Press Release- Lines In the Sand- Chronicles TX Redistricting Case & Downfall Of Tom Delay

University of Texas Press Releases Lines in the Sand, Chronicling Recent Redistricting Case in Texas and Downfall of Tom DeLay

A new book by University of Texas law professor Steve Bickerstaff, released by UT Press, offers comprehensive look at one of the most pivotal episodes to date in 21st Century American politics -- the 2003 Congressional redistricting battle in Texas.

Austin (PRWEB) February 14, 2007 -- University of Texas Press has released Steve Bickerstaff's Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom Delay. The book details and provides provocative insights into one of the most pivotal episodes in 21st Century American politics to date - the efforts by Republican lawmakers in 2003 (led by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay) to gerrymander Texas's 32 Congressional districts.

The nation watched the redistricting battle closely - a landmark battle in American election law annals, which included Democratic state legislators twice fleeing the state in an ultimately futile effort to prevent a Republic triumph.

Columnist Molly Ivins noted, "The Texas redistricting was a corruption of our democratic processes. Lines in the Sand explains what happened in an accurate and therefore damning fashion."

The book - offering the first truly comprehensive look at the Texas redistricting case and its implications for the United States - provides a front-line account of what happened in 2003, often through the personal stories of members of both parties and of the minority activist groups caught in the redistricting battle.

It also probes the aftermath of the 2003 events, including the criminal prosecutions of DeLay and his associates and the events that led to DeLay's eventual resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives - and, in some observers' views, led directly to significant Democratic gains in the 2006 Congressional elections. In addition, it explains how a handful of Texas public interest advocates brought down DeLay's plan for increasing personal and national party control over state elected officials nationwide.

Bickerstaff, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas Law School and election law specialist, also examines legal implications of the 2003 redistricting battle in the book, which includes analysis of cases involving gerrymandering, mid-decade redistricting, the effect redistricting has on minorities, and effects on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He specifically criticizes the June 2006 Supreme Court ruling for opening the door for states and local governments to engage in mid-decade redistricting.

The book and the issues it raises will be featured in an upcoming symposium, hosted by the University of Texas Law School on March 2, 2007. The symposium will bring Bickerstaff together with key players and observers in the Texas redistricting case, as well as a number of election law experts from across the nation.


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/2/prweb504448.htm

[kpete]

8. FEC rejects Dems' complaint about payment to McGavick

FEC rejects Dems' complaint about payment to McGavick

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Tuesday dismissed allegations that former GOP Senate candidate Mike McGavick violated federal election law by accepting a $28 million "golden parachute" from Safeco.

Democrats had complained that the payment to McGavick, the former Safeco chief executive officer who lost in November to Democratic U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, violated laws against in-kind contributions.

The state Democratic Party filed a formal complaint last year with the FEC, asking for an investigation into the compensation McGavick got when he resigned from the Seattle insurer to run for the Senate.

McGavick served as the firm's chief executive from 2001 to early 2006.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003571047_mcgavick14.html

[kpete]

9. TX: Democrats sue over voting machines

Democrats sue over voting machines

By KELLEY SHANNON and CRAIG KAPITAN
Eagle Staff and Wire Reports


AUSTIN - The Texas Democratic Party sued the state's top election official Tuesday alleging that eSlate electronic voting equipment - used by several Brazos Valley counties - doesn't properly record straight-party balloting.

The federal lawsuit targets voting machines made by Hart InterCivic. The company's machines are used by Brazos, Burleson, Grimes and Madison counties.

According to the suit, straight-party votes cast with the equipment aren't fully tabulated if the voter goes through the ballot and selects certain candidates down the list as if to "emphasize" a decision.

In those cases, the vote for an emphasized candidate is lost, even though that might be the candidate the voter most wanted to support, said Buck Wood, an attorney for the party and for Wilburn Bullard III - a Madison County Democrat who is challenging the November election.

more at:
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/021407/politics_20070214033.php

[kpete]

10. Promise of Accessible Voting for Voters With Disabilities Still Unfulfilled, New Report Finds

Promise of Accessible Voting for Voters With Disabilities Still Unfulfilled, New Report Finds


WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Direct Recording
Electronic (DRE) voting machines, once considered essential to ensuring
private and independent voting booth access for voters with disabilities,
often do not work as promised, according to a new report published today.
Authored by access technology expert Noel Runyan and published by election
reform groups Demos and Voter Action, "Improving Access to Voting: A Report
on the Technology for Accessible Voting Systems" shows that, due to
inadequate or malfunctioning voting machines, voters with disabilities are
frequently forced to ask for assistance or compromise the privacy of their
vote -- severe violations of federal disability accommodation requirements.

The report details significant difficulties for voters with
disabilities, including: the lack of a controllable interface for those who
are unable to use touch screens or tactile key inputs; inadequate audio
access features for people with visual or cognitive impairments, with
dyslexia, or with severe motor-impairments; and lack of privacy curtains to
prevent others from reading the voters' selections on their visual
displays.

"I originally had high hopes for the new voting machines," said Noel
Runyan, the author of the report. Runyan, who is blind, is a professional
electrical engineer who has spent much of his career developing access
technologies for people with visual impairments. "Even with my technical
background and the help of poll workers, I could not get the Sequoia Edge
II DRE to work. I have since tested most of the available voting systems at
conferences and at the National Federation of the Blind's accessible voting
systems lab, and my fears have been confirmed: Most of the DREs deployed
were not designed with real disability access in mind."

more at:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2007/0004527732&EDATE=

[kpete]

11. Voting Rights Tangle in D.C.

Voting Rights Tangle in D.C.

By John C. Fortier
Posted: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Hill (Washington)
Publication Date: February 14, 2007


Research Fellow John C. Fortier
On Thursday, residents of the District of Columbia will walk the halls of Congress to advocate for the D.C. Voting Rights Act. D.C. residents should be represented in Congress, but the proposed bill to grant such representation by simple legislation is unconstitutional. If the bill does pass into law, all of the hours of advocacy will be wasted when the courts strike it down.

The District has 580,000 residents who, like other U.S. citizens, pay taxes, fight in wars, and vote in presidential elections. But unlike citizens in states, District residents have no voting representatives in the House or Senate.

D.C. congressional representation is being addressed in two ways in the 110th Congress. First, Democrats amended House rules, as they did in 1993, to allow delegates from D.C. and the territories to vote in committees and the committee of the whole, as long as the delegate votes do not actually count toward final passage of a bill.

Republicans complained bitterly about the 1993 policy, brought suit against it, and ultimately reversed it when they took over the majority in the 104th Congress. Columnist George Will has recently taken up the case that such a procedure is unconstitutional. But Will is wrong. Leaving aside the wisdom of such a proposal, federal courts in Michel v. Anderson ruled that delegates may be permitted to vote in committees and the committee of the whole. The courts’ reasoning mirrored a quip by then-Rep. Bob Walker (R-Pa.), who noted that “when they vote when it counts, it does not count, and when it does not count, it counts.”

In other words, Congress has the right to design its committees and other internal structures as it sees fit. The only constitutional requirement is that the representatives who vote on final passage of a bill are those who represent states.

more at:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25621/pub_detail.asp

[kpete]

12. California Senate voted Tuesday to move the state's presidential primary from June to February

Senate agrees to move '08 vote to Feb.
Legislators say shifting the primary would give California more clout in the presidential race. But if more states follow, the benefit may be nil.
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
February 14, 2007


SACRAMENTO — The California Senate voted Tuesday to move the state's presidential primary from June to February in hopes of increasing the state's political clout — but the plan could backfire.

The Senate passed a measure that would enable Democrats and Republicans to choose presidential nominees Feb. 5 instead of June 3. The bill is expected to be heard in the Assembly next week and to pass easily. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will sign it.

Lawmakers hope that an early California primary will force contenders to rethink a campaign strategy that traditionally focuses on face-to-face persuasion in New Hampshire and Iowa, which hold the country's first primaries or caucuses in January.

But at least four other big states are poised to hold early primaries as well, potentially eroding the greater role California hopes to play.

Legislation similar to California's is pending in Illinois, Texas, Florida and New Jersey. And politicians in New York and elsewhere are pondering early primaries.

Pennsylvania and Indiana have bills that would move their primaries to the first week of March.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-primary14feb14,0,3518245.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[kpete]

13. NM: Judge strikes down Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance

Judge strikes down Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 14, 2007

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - A federal judge has ruled that the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Christina Armijo's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in 2005 by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the League of Woman Voters and other plaintiffs. They argued that the ordinance violated the 14th Amendment and infringed upon their right to free expression under the First Amendment.

Armijo, in an 83-page order issued Monday, rejected their argument regarding freedom of expression. However, she found that the ordinance violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by imposing a significant burden on the fundamental right to vote.

Armijo wrote that the ordinance gave election officials "such unbridled discretion that arbitrary or disparate treatment of similarly situated voters is almost certain to result." She ordered the city not to enforce the ordinance in future municipal elections.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56987.html

[kpete]

15. Electronic voting machines are not the way to go

Electronic voting machines are not the way to go
02/13/2007

I just finished reading Robin Lind's letter to the editor published in the Democrat on Feb. 7 entitled "Virginia voters: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'"

And frankly, Lind couldn't be more wrong.

Virginians, and all Americans, deserve a fair and impartial election process, one that is free from error and fraud. Touch-screen voting machines cannot accomplish this.

Apparently Lind hasn't seen the HBO documentary, "Hacking Democracy." That two-hour long expose on voting practices nationwide revealed in startling clarity how easy it was to produce fraudulent election results.

Errors and deliberate cases of fraud were revealed in districts where the majority of voters were either Democratic or Republican.

Diebold and ESS own more than 80 percent of the touch-screen voting machines used in this country, and the documentary showed how both companies produced an unreliable product.

Lind assumes that the $3 billion spent through the "Help America Vote Act" is actually going to help America vote. It will, but it won't help their votes be counted accurately.

He also mentions that all the time and effort that poll workers contribute, and he is right. Their effort is commendable. But they are not part of the problem: machines that do not produce reliable results are.

The people who created "Hacking Democracy" actually conducted a test of Diebold machines using one of their un-tampered machines, a memory card they brought with them, and with a Diebold representative present and conducting the test!

To the surprise of those present - including the Diebold rep - results had reversed themselves once the memory card was read. The results on the machine said one thing, the memory card that would have been taken to a separate site for tallying said something else.

Lind should make sure he avails himself of all the facts - and definitely before he labels those who disagree with him as "conspiracy theorists."

Richard Blackwell

Warrenton

http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=17847407&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506071&rfi=6

[kpete]

16. America Goes to the Polls is a comprehensive report on voter turnout in the 2006 elections.

America Goes to the Polls is a comprehensive report on voter turnout in the 2006 elections. It charts voter turnout in midterm elections over the last 30 years, ranking the states by 2006 turnout and their turnout growth over 2002. America Goes the Polls also discusses election reform ideas that could improve voter participation as well as the challenge to voter mobilization of reaching today’s diverse electorate of over 200 million voters.


REPORT IS HERE:
http://www.nonprofitvote.org/wp-content/uploads/America%20Goes%20to%20the%20Polls%20-%20Final.pdf

[Kurovski]

17. 5th recommend and...

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: Thank you, Kpete, the poster with the most-er!

Every day, in all kinds of ways from ER to GD, she's spreading the love all over the joint. :bounce:

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. What makes the dilatory progress of any real and proper reform of your voting

system is, of course, that these last 6 years of critical, domestic and international, economic, legislative and social collapse, were caused not by just one unambiguously fraudulent election (the selection of 2000). It would be surreal in an emerging nation, but in an advanced one, it al together defies belief.