|
Why has the EAC (Bushite-dominated) been so slow to move against them? Why were their U.S. Senators, Clinton and Schumer (not known for their love of democracy), the ONLY TWO Senators of either party in the entire Anthrax Senate to vote against the "Help America Vote Act" (e-voting boondoggle; and the moment of the fascist coup--Oct. 2002)?
Oh, the Bushites and their "trade secret" voting corporations are NOW aggressively going after the New York election theft market, but not when it might have counted for something, as to influencing the rest of the country, back during the 2002 to 2004 period, when these lethal machines were being fast-tracked everywhere else. That's my theory. New York is grand central for most of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and special care was taken not to alarm New York voters--who might have pressured, say, the New York Times, to raise troubling questions, during the crucial period of proliferation and entrenchment in the rest of the country.
I've been puzzling over Clinton's and Schumer's votes against HAVA--the ONLY Senate votes against HAVA--for some time. Both are super-corporatists and big war supporters. Can't imagine they'd care about secret, corporate vote counting by Bushite corporations. Indeed, it's the sort of thing they would be all for. And, for a while, I toyed with the idea that it might be a hopeful sign that a Hillary regime would at least tolerate election reform. But I think the above explanation fits reality much better. She and Schumer could vote against it in the confidence that it would pass (everybody else, including all Senate Democrats and about half of the House Democrats voted FOR it). They could therefore keep the issue from raising red flags in New York, heart of the country's news monopolies. And the EAC would ease back, not press on missed deadlines, etc., for a time. Once the system was installed nationwide, then they would Bushify New York elections as well.
They may fail--now that red flags are being raised about this system all over the country--but it won't matter that much, as to national policy. Election outcomes everywhere else in the country can be switched to fascist candidates with a few lines of secret code, invisibly, leaving no trace. A third of the country is still without any audit/recount system at all, and the rest have "trade secret" code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, in their touchscreens, in their optiscans, in their scanning of absentee ballots, and in the central tabulators, with a miserably inadequate 1% audit.
HOWEVER, the magnificent fight that activists are mounting in New York against these election theft systems, may have enormous influence on what happens in other states, at this point. The evidence is in, on the these machines. They are extremely hackable and insecure. Patching those security holes is very expensive, and more pop up all the time (like the buckets in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"). And the whole system is inherently non-transparent, and thus fraudulent on its face (with the only remedy being a paper ballot backup for every vote, and handcounting 100% of those ballots, as a check on machine fraud). (The Venezuelans handcount 55% of the votes in an OPEN SOURCE CODE system. That is not enough in a "trade secret" code system run by Bushites.)
Many county and state election officials are coming under increasing criticism for holding unverifiable elections, and pouring taxpayer money into these expensive, crapass machines. Corporate lobbying is rampant among them, and it's only a matter of time before corruption begins to be uncovered. The only safe position, as to election officials' careers, will become full verifiability. And New York insisting on full verifiability will greatly aid honest election officials everywhere, and citizen election reform movements, and it will put corrupt officials on notice.
Hats off to New York anti-election fraud activists, and to GuvWurld, for your unrelenting efforts to restore our democracy! Cheers to you! You are my heroes!
------------------------
NOTE: I haven't checked the state lists of verifiable vs. unverifiable systems lately, but last time I checked, I believe that Vermont and maybe New Hampshire still have verifiable elections. Oregon uses all mail-in voting, but I believe most of the ballots are then scanned into an electronic system, not handcounted. About half of Californians are now choosing absentee ballot voting--in a desperate attempt to get around the rigged machines--but the California system has the same flaw as Oregon's--the AB votes are mostly scanned, not counted. New York uses their old, reliable and virtually unriggable lever machines. Connecticut, which has the old lever machines, recently introduced electronic tabulators, which I think may account for Joe Lieberman beating Ned Lamont. CT's other US Senator, Christopher Dodd, was one of the chief engineers of the HAVA coup, working with the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
