New Holt Bill Fraud on the Public, Part TWO, Blackwell's and Harris's Revenge

[Land Shark]

Does your state election law have an automatic machine recount provision, based on winning percentage? (For example: If the winner and loser are separated by 1% or less, an automatic machine recount shall apply.)

If so, the new Enron/Arthur Anderson-style "audit" provisions of the new Holt bill (i.e. the government appoints its own auditors to check itself) DO NOT EVEN APPLY in Your state if the race is close.

BUT A BIG BOLD SIGN in every polling place will tell you to check your paper ballot carefully because it will be the "ballot of record in recounts and audits"

Not true! (see boxed excerpt from Holt bill below) If state law provides for a machine recount, the Holt audit bills won't apply, and the machine recount insures that we just re-run the DREs, or the machine recount of the opscams operates under the same defective programming.

So that is yet another main reason why the Holt bill is so fraudulent and deceptive.

Remember, if the STATE law has a recount based on a winning percentage concept, then the hold "audit" doesn't apply at all. Well, that recount in Florida and Ohio would be a

machine recount,

so long as memory serves me which is that the recounts in those states are based on winning percentage (they are definitely machine recounts in FL). Thus, no paper gets ever gets hand counted in those states, and with DREs the paper is totally irrelevant in this situation.

Corrupt states and officials can easily evade the requirements of the Holt bill's audit provisions, even if they were meaningful instead of fraudulent. (see my other post on this) For example, Blackwell, were he still in office, could draft a regulation that says "if the winning percentage is less than 60%, there shall be an automatic recount of the DREs by reprinting the results printouts, provided that $100,000 per county shall be due and owing from the losing candidate under the first count though this shall not affect the right of the losing candidate to the automatic recount or its execution, unless the losing candidate publicly and in writing concedes the race and waives automatic recount rights under this section."

Such a clever statute would even influence brave "losers" to concede races, and allow the media to move on to more "important" stories like missing blondes in the Caribbean.

Many regulations or laws less ridiculous than my example (some already in effect) will have the same effect of defeating the holt "audit" requirement and ALSO defeating the goal of a meaningful recount (because they are either machine recounts or DRE "recounts")

The actual number of these paper "ballots" (assuming that is not a deceptive term, as discussed elsewhere) that will EVER be counted is very low, even if some actually DO get counted:

Except for the occasional close race, the audits will be 3% of paper ballots ASSUMING ANY AUDIT AT ALL APPLIES which in many states it won't. So the bottom line is that the actual number of paper ballots ACTUALLY COUNTED, expressed as a percentage will be less than 3%, in all likelihood, and probably much less, unless there are a high number of close races triggering the somewhat higher precinct audit percentages under Holt, and these have to be enough in number and volume to swamp all the states that won't have Holt federal audits at all - only state "automatic" recounts, defective as they are, generally speaking.

Because the percentage of paper ballots actually counted will be so low, and actually will be ZERO as to some of the races in many states with existing or future automatic recount provisions in state law, the HOLT sign will be MISINFORMING and MISLEADING people.

In a state with automatic machine recount statutes, the sign should say that

the paper ballot is the ballot of record for recounts and audits, but only if the race is NOT close!!!!! REPEAT FOR CLARITY: Your PAPER BALLOT DOES NOT COUNT IF THE RACE IS CLOSE YOU DUMB CITIZEN!!!!

Now there's some truth-in-legislation.

Oh

My

God.

Restated again because I can hardly believe it myself: Under the new holt bill, assuming it's ok to even call it a paper "ballot", your paper ballot counts, but only if the race is not even close, and if it's not a close race, we will only count 3% of those little buggers you put so much of your faith in.

Are we comfortable with the Enron-audit provisions of this bill not applying EVEN TO FEDERAL RACES in many states - those with "automatic" machine recount provisions based on winning percentages (which often attach HUGE price tags $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to the recount "rights"?) (to be "automatic" they will not require payment UP FRONT, they'll just bill and sue you instead, to keep the recount "automatic" or self-executing.)

I am telling you the new Holt bill's a fraud.

Read it AND analyze it fully. I wish we could form a jury of some sort and really focus on this, then have a vote because it eliminates idle debate.

Here's the offending section:

‘‘SEC. 327. EXCEPTION FOR ELECTIONS SUBJECT TO AUTO
MATIC RECOUNT UNDER STATE LAW.

‘‘This subtitle does not apply to any election for
which a recount is required automatically under State law
because of the margin of victory between the two can-
didates receiving the largest number of votes in the elec-
tion. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed
to waive the application of any other provision of this Act
to any election (including the ballot verification and audit
capacity requirements of section 301(a)(2)). (emphasis added)

The bill is an abomination and those who haven't read it should not defend it, or risk being perceived as defending. (on edit: I take that back, go right ahead...)

The problem is, you have to be sort of an expert in election laws (not necessarily a lawyer though) just to realize these nasty results.

THere should be a warning sign put on the new Holt bill.

[BeFree]

1. Two ballots?

Sounds like they want to have two sets of books.

Enron style accounting has taken over our election system. No wonder we are beating around the bush.

[Land Shark]

2. Two sets of books, almost guaranteed to differ, a clean face presented to the public

Arthur-Anderson "audits" revisited, only this time they won't even bother to hire a Big five accounting firm for the mere *appearance* of objectivity. The government will appoint the auditors it trusts. Checks and balances, let me repeat my developing mantra here, can only be provided by the public in elections. Because of the governments inherent conflicts of interest.

Public oversight. in two words.

In one word? Democracy.

But as a lawyer, or recovering lawyer, I don't like being limited to one word. Or even two. : )

[BeFree]

3. The auditors?

Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia are the only auditors allowed. And they get to do it in secret. Too, they are bought and paid for by the politicians.

Meanwhile all the government employees are stiff-arming any of the public who are trying to tackle this issue. As a football player, or recovering football player, the terms used are appropriate, eh? :)

[Land Shark]

4. They are trying to get the Election-non-Oversight Heismann Trophy....

(which features an outstretched stiff arm on the trophy)

[BeFree]

5. Except

The auditors call it the "Heistman Trophy."

[Land Shark]

6. Touche'

[kpete]

7. Nothing in our Democracy Counts

If our votes don't count!

We MUST REFUSE to compromise - especially when the compromise is more lipstick on the pig.

[Land Shark]

8. refuse to lose ... Democracy .. or self-respect for failing to reach for the best

[Ellipsis]

9. Top Kick...(K&R)

Can they strike this provision out?

[Land Shark]

10. They can do pretty much anything they want to; That's the Problem in many ways

[Land Shark]

11. A link for the Holt II bill is here

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/HoltBill_FinalDraft_020507.pdf

[Kurovski]

12. Kick(nt)

[Wilms]

13. You are right to be pointing out Sec. 327.

Not only is that language sure to maintain the recount status quo in many states, it ain't what 550 said.

From HR 550, 109th Congress:

SEC. 2. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT RECORD OR HARD COPY.

`(iv) The individual permanent paper records produced pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.

From HR 811, (from the OP)

‘‘SEC. 327. EXCEPTION FOR ELECTIONS SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC RECOUNT UNDER STATE LAW.

‘‘This subtitle does not apply to any election for which a recount is required automatically under State law because of the margin of victory between the two candidates receiving the largest number of votes in the election. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to waive the application of any other provision of this Act to any election (including the ballot verification and audit capacity requirements of section 301(a)(2)).

So why did they change it? :shrug: :grr:

[Land Shark]

14. I heard it was a last minute change, I don't know why that is....

but an even better question is why do last minute changes to election bills tend to be really nasty -- but in a way that makes a certain sort of sense? Oh well, perhaps just pure coincidence, but it looks like a bid to grab the support of corrupt states by assuring them they can opt out of Holt audits just be passing or keeping a machine recount law that's toothless but triggered by winning percentage, per 327's requirements.

[Wilms]

15. I'm not sure that it was last minute.

Nevertheless, it's inclusion would be awful enough even if it hadn't supplanted 550's treatment.

Yeah. So who pushed this?

[Kurovski]

16. Kick(nt)

[kster]

17. KICK.nt