EXCLUSIVE: AMENDMENT TO BAN/RESTRICT TOUCH-SCREEN DRES MAY BE BROUGHT TO HOLT BILL TODAY!

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



EXCLUSIVE: AMENDMENT TO BAN/RESTRICT TOUCH-SCREEN DRES MAY BE BROUGHT TO HOLT BILL!
The BRAD BLOG Has Confirmed That Congresswoman Susan Davis is Considering Bringing Such an Amendment This Afternoon as Rush Holt's Controversial HR 811 Goes to Rules Committee Before Introduction on House Floor...

-- By Brad Friedman from Glenwood Springs, CO

An amendment either ban or restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems may be added to Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) Election Reform Bill by California Congresswoman Susan Davis today, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm.

After learning of the possibility early this morning, we have now confirmed with Davis' office that she is mulling such an amendment to present to the House Rules Committee which is set to meet this afternoon at 3pm ET to determine which amendments will be allowed for debate on Holt's controversial HR 811 election bill. The legislation is currently scheduled to come up for debate on the House Floor as soon as it's passed out of the Rules Committee.

The committee will decide whether or not to allow amendments to the bill at all once it's on the House floor. The BRAD BLOG has learned that the committee essentially has three options in that regard. They can move the bill forward with a "Closed Rule", meaning no amendments are allowed on the bill; a "Restricted Rule", meaning only certain amendments will be allowed for debate; or an "Open Rule" which would allow any amendment to be brought to the bill while it's on the House floor.

The phone and fax numbers for members of the Rules Committee are posted below, along with the contact information for House Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer who would be instrumental in allowing such an amendment to be brought.

At this hour, Davis' office is considering language for such an amendment, conferring with legal authorities, gauging potential support from colleagues and still mulling whether they will introduce it at all. They may be considering restrictions on DRE usage, rather than a complete ban, along the lines of what California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen implemented recently after her independent "Top-to-Bottom Review" found severe vulnerabilities in all of the states certified touch-screen voting systems....

COMPLETE DEVELOPING REPORT
PLUS CONTACT INFO FOR LEADERSHIP, RULES COMMITTEE:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5032



---
Brad Friedman
Publisher/Editor, The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5032

[Patsy Stone]

1. Please let this come to pass.

K&R

[Gregorian]

2. I sense a lot of confused people on this bill. I am.

Moveon sends an email asking me to contact my Rep. And I don't know whether I'm for or against this bill.

On the "against" list, I see Bev Harris's name. I overlook that, and vote no. Then there are posts on this forum saying how the bill will benefit their state.

And I read the posts of confused people, even on this forum.

Where is the definitive bottom line on this bill?


Edit- And I know that regardless of whether I support the bill or not, this is a good amendment. So at least I support this part.

[orleans]

3. the other day mark crispin miller was sending out emails

saying this bill SUCKED

i posted it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1711112

and moveon, common cause & people for the american way were supporting it. not good.

[Gregorian]

7. And Mark Miller I feel I can totally trust.

He appears to know his facts. And our own Althecat is someone I trust, and he's posting his opposition.

[althecat]

47. To clarify Gregorian - I am very strongly in favour of this amendment.

To clarify Gregorian

I am flattered you trust my views.

I am very strongly in favour of this amendment.

As for HR811 my view is similar to that of Melissa Gs.

I have opposed it here because I very strongly feel we should not agree to such a flawed solution. And I also think that many of the arguments made in its favour around here are flawed.

I oppose it more generally for the reasons given by Cookie Wookie below in his post #32 (APOLOGIES FOR LIFTING SO MUCH... BUT IT IS REALLY GOOD STUFF) and am free to admit to being a purist by his definition. Perhaps an optimistic idealist too.

Now to generalize about those who oppose the bill. They see getting something that's better than nothing as worse than nothing. They think that the bill will further entrench DREs because it doesn't ban them (nor does it mandate them). They think that only a bill that totally bans DREs is good enough. There are also the hand counted paper ballot people who want nothing else. That there is no support for it in the states by the people who have the power -- election officials & legislators -- doesn't faze them. They are the purists. If you compromise you lose. They would rather have no audits and no paper than the wrong audits and the wrong paper if it's coming from a DRE, or even for some, used in optiscan.

They know the problems with trying to verify paper trails printed by DREs, they know the research that showed that people didn't look at the paper to confirm their votes, they know that trying to count the toilet paper roll ballots is one hellacious job -- intentionally designed it to be a really wrong way to count votes, not really intended to be counted, but to give a false sense of solving the verifiabilty problem . They know if the paper isn't hand counted, and electronic totals are used, then certainly this means that the paper is meaningless. Of course that is correct. They don't want electronic counts to be ballots of record. Those are ballots of record now in I think most DRE states, so killing the bill won't stop that, but as I said, they are the purists.

They may feel desperate or be desperate to get rid of DREs but they so far have been unable to work within the system to get change because for them it's all or nothing, and that isn't the way the system works, at least most of the time.

I am also coming to understand more fully the reasons stated by Cookie Wookie for why something is better than nothing in a bunch of jurisdictions that really have nothing at all at present.

To generalize, I'd say that those who support the bill, especially in states with paperless DREs, want to have paper, any kind of paper rather than no paper and want to have audits, especially since the Holt bill requires manual hand counts for audits and recounts. When they find they have no other options and can't get, say a DRE ban, or perfect audit protocols, or everything that we need to make our voting system secure, transparent, accurate and verifiable, they are willing to grit their teeth and accept incremental improvement legislatively . They don't see incrementalism as a "danger to democracy" or a sell out, they aren't corrupt, but rather they grudgingly accept that this is the way the Democratic process works. All the while fighting to get what we really need. These are people who are able to live with ambiguity and accept progress not perfection. They tend to be more pragmatic than dramatic, more seasoned in the ways of the Democratic process, and generally are better able to work with legislators to get the maximum benefits possible in a system that resists change.

The paperless DRE states, in 2006, included the following:
Entirely paperless DREs for voting on election day - DE, GA, LA, MD, SC, TN
Some paperless DRE jurisdictions: AR (3 counties), CO, DC, FL, IN, IA, KY, KS, MS (2 counties), NJ, PA, TX, WI (1 county),
VA opscan & paperless DREs.

Without HR811, citizens in these states may likely once again end up in the 2008 election voting on paperless DREs again. The supporters of the bill worry that another election will be stolen and believe that not only will the bill discourage the purchase of new DREs and provide funds to buy optical scan systems (like for MD & VA, who have bills but no money), but will give them some evidence even if not enough to move the issue of a DRE ban even further forward. There are other things in the bill that would be good, like paper ballots if machines can't be used, and rules on how ITAs handle business, and bans on internet connections and wireless.

The Holt Bill would give them "some kind of verified voting". Even if the rotten paper trails of the toilet paper roll DREs can barely be audited, it is more than nothing, a way to possibly catch election fraud. For those of us who have tried for years to audit elections on paperless DREs, it really is a case of better than nothing. Kind of like someone who breaks a leg when hiking in the mountains and uses branches and shoe laces to tie on a split for the trip out. They don't sit and wait for god to come down from heaven to take care of the problem. These are people who work within the reality (as they see it) of the system."

You might call that the more paper is good argument.

I also oppose NOW when there appears to be such potential for progress in recent moves in California and Florida. Moves which might get a set-back if HR811 gets passed as is. If HR811 were passed and Bowen recertifies DRE machines in California then I think that would be a disaster.

I personally think that the legal process ought to be able to outlaw DREs as being unfit for purpose and a breach of the false claims act. Not to mention RICO etc...

I am particularly concerned about the moves that would further legitimise electronic votes in HR811. Though I acknowledge that that is effectively the position in many places already it would be good not to give this incorrect legal position further federal legislative backing.

However as this amendment would presumably render those provisions void then the bill becomes very very very much more palatable.

With DREs banned then HR811 would probably receive my support all the way.

However again - and sorry to sit on the fence on this still - the devil as always is in the detail. Banning DREs in 2012 for example would be better than nothing but really not good enough in my mind. Banning DREs in a manner that did not effectively ban them at all (which would not surprise me from this congress) would also be a bad thing.

Its complicated.

But simple answer - this is very very encouraging.

And Gregorian finally.

I really am not much more than a keyboard ninnie writing from Wellington, New Zealand. I give a shit. And have followed this debate and issue for several years. But this is not my backyard, my story, or 100% of my working life and nor does it involve a political process that I am more than peripherally aware of the workings of.

Good luck.

al

[Gregorian]

51. That's great. Thank you.

You don't know how much I appreciate humility. Having said that, we're on the same page. I have not known the details until now. But I know the dangers involved, having watched the last three major elections.

I honestly don't know why we haven't simply banned these monsters, and cleaned the slate for a while.

I'm optimistic because we are watching and paying attention. They may try to install the bogus machines, but we're on top of the situation. Sort of.

I just can't believe that we haven't progressed much past the dark ages in respect to honesty and integrity.

We'd be better off with little squares of paper in bins. They would have a much harder time on a massive scale than they do now.

[Cookie wookie]

57. "Cookie Wookie below in his post"

This Cookie's a her.

: - )

'I really am not much more than a keyboard ninnie writing from Wellington, New Zealand. I give a shit. "

How could some of us ever forget what you did for us by getting out the word on these fraudulent voting systems when no one else would. You may have no idea how much it meant, but I haven't forgotten.

Take a bow!

[althecat]

58. You are very kind. TYVM....

And sorry about the gender mixup...

:)

[Melissa G]

5. There is not, AFAICT, a definitive bottom line...

In the humble opinion of a fence sitter, most folks agree that it is not the bill anyone wants. Most folks agree it is the most likely thing we could get legislation wise and so some folks support it because of that. Others believe it institutionalizes things which ought not to be institutionalized and believe the fight should proceed a different way.

IMHO, this amendment should be likely be supported regardless of how you feel about rest of Holt.
I have called the entire rules committee and my rep already, and I normally oppose Holt as it is. I believe this opposed position is also true of Bradblog and Voter's unite who are helping send out this important info.

[althecat]

45. Well said Mel G.

That is probably fairly close to the way I would want to sum up where we are now.

It is kinda exciting.

I can smell the distinct aroma of toasted voting machine vendor blowing in from a D.C. direction :)

[Melissa G]

53. I sure hope you are right, althecat.

That is one bonfire party I would love to attend! :thumbsup:

[BradBlog]

14. You are right.

The bill *is* confusing and purposely so. Holt and his supporters are calling it a "paper ballot bill" even though it does NOT mandate paper ballots.

Even with the Susan Davis amendment to ban DREs, it's still not a good bill. But the amendment to ban DREs is something *everyone* should be able to agree on!

Many EI advocates are supporting the bill because they either think it's the best they can get (it's not) or it will directly help their state in someway, even if it ultimately doesn't help us across the nation.

Vote NO on the Holt HR 811 bill unless it includes a ban on DREs at the very least!

(More on the dishonest campaign in favor of 811 by MoveOn and others is found here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5029 as I reported yesterday)

[Gregorian]

20. Good. That's what I thought. And thank you!

I also thank you for literally shoving the election issues down my throat. I now know, thanks to you and very few like you, that this is extremely important.

Phew.

[BradBlog]

22. Thanks and please...

...Shove it down a few other folks throats today as well if you can!!! :-)

[Cookie wookie]

32. i think the big rift in the e-voting movement on this bill is

just bottom line about banning DREs or all forms of electronic voting including optical scan and thinking the situation can be improved by HR811 or that there can be no improvement but a total ban.

To generalize, I'd say that those who support the bill, especially in states with paperless DREs, want to have paper, any kind of paper rather than no paper and want to have audits, especially since the Holt bill requires manual hand counts for audits and recounts. When they find they have no other options and can't get, say a DRE ban, or perfect audit protocols, or everything that we need to make our voting system secure, transparent, accurate and verifiable, they are willing to grit their teeth and accept incremental improvement legislatively . They don't see incrementalism as a "danger to democracy" or a sell out, they aren't corrupt, but rather they grudgingly accept that this is the way the Democratic process works. All the while fighting to get what we really need. These are people who are able to live with ambiguity and accept progress not perfection. They tend to be more pragmatic than dramatic, more seasoned in the ways of the Democratic process, and generally are better able to work with legislators to get the maximum benefits possible in a system that resists change.

The paperless DRE states, in 2006, included the following:
Entirely paperless DREs for voting on election day - DE, GA, LA, MD, SC, TN
Some paperless DRE jurisdictions: AR (3 counties), CO, DC, FL, IN, IA, KY, KS, MS (2 counties), NJ, PA, TX, WI (1 county),
VA opscan & paperless DREs.

Without HR811, citizens in these states may likely once again end up in the 2008 election voting on paperless DREs again. The supporters of the bill worry that another election will be stolen and believe that not only will the bill discourage the purchase of new DREs and provide funds to buy optical scan systems (like for MD & VA, who have bills but no money), but will give them some evidence even if not enough to move the issue of a DRE ban even further forward. There are other things in the bill that would be good, like paper ballots if machines can't be used, and rules on how ITAs handle business, and bans on internet connections and wireless.

The Holt Bill would give them "some kind of verified voting". Even if the rotten paper trails of the toilet paper roll DREs can barely be audited, it is more than nothing, a way to possibly catch election fraud. For those of us who have tried for years to audit elections on paperless DREs, it really is a case of better than nothing. Kind of like someone who breaks a leg when hiking in the mountains and uses branches and shoe laces to tie on a split for the trip out. They don't sit and wait for god to come down from heaven to take care of the problem. These are people who work within the reality (as they see it) of the system.

Now to generalize about those who oppose the bill. They see getting something that's better than nothing as worse than nothing. They think that the bill will further entrench DREs because it doesn't ban them (nor does it mandate them). They think that only a bill that totally bans DREs is good enough. There are also the hand counted paper ballot people who want nothing else. That there is no support for it in the states by the people who have the power -- election officials & legislators -- doesn't faze them. They are the purists. If you compromise you lose. They would rather have no audits and no paper than the wrong audits and the wrong paper if it's coming from a DRE, or even for some, used in optiscan.

They know the problems with trying to verify paper trails printed by DREs, they know the research that showed that people didn't look at the paper to confirm their votes, they know that trying to count the toilet paper roll ballots is one hellacious job -- intentionally designed it to be a really wrong way to count votes, not really intended to be counted, but to give a false sense of solving the verifiabilty problem . They know if the paper isn't hand counted, and electronic totals are used, then certainly this means that the paper is meaningless. Of course that is correct. They don't want electronic counts to be ballots of record. Those are ballots of record now in I think most DRE states, so killing the bill won't stop that, but as I said, they are the purists.

They may feel desperate or be desperate to get rid of DREs but they so far have been unable to work within the system to get change because for them it's all or nothing, and that isn't the way the system works, at least most of the time.

The reason people are confused is that both sides are right (except, of course when they mislead people either accidentally or intentionally).

I think of the Vietnam antiwar movement. I think everything that was done to stop the war, whether from those who tried to work within the system or from those who worked outside the system, it all eventually cumulatively worked.

Maybe because so many of us are concerned that if we don't get verifiable, transparent, secure elections soon we may not have any elections or democracy, that is what makes everyone so adamant and passionate about their positions.

For what it's worth, my opinion.

[Gregorian]

39. That's what I've come away from this with, also.

Thanks for that.

If the country remains evenly divided, this issue may continue to haunt us for a long time.

[Cookie wookie]

42. I didn't think anyone would read such a long post!

Of course I can't be objective but I don't disagree with all the antiDRE or even the HCPB activists, since bottom line that's what I want.

I worked in my state to get a HCPB ballot introduced in our legislature. Sure it was to get paper on the DREs we were stuck with, but it was a beautiful bill. Went no where, so I learned that legislation does no good if it doesn't pass. You just try to get as much as you want in a bill, keep as much bad out as possible, and get it passed. Then you do it again to get more good stuff later or fix things that were wrong in earlier bills.

That's the way it works and those who are working to kill HR811 will find that out as they try to get their HCPB and ban DRE bills passed. It's harder than it looks. Even if HR811 passes the House, then we have to tackle the Senate and that is looming like a dark black cloud because of Feinsten's bill. The language that gives the EAC discretionary power regarding certification of voting systems would make that whole process a worse joke than it already is. At least now we can take legal action when states don't follow certification rules. Bad stuff.

I don't think the country is evenly divided on this issue. My last trip to DC to lobby for the bill, our legislators hadn't even heard there was opposition from activists. The ones who send out all those email action alerts are the most vocal -- just try a google search and there they are at the top of the lists -- but not in the majority. Allthecat posted the list of supporters (which is a bit dated) which is what, just over a hundred. MoveOn did their poll and found that 72% of the members polled supported the bill. Those polled were ".... all MoveOn members who've ever signed a petition or made a phone call on the election integrity issue," which with their 3 million or so membership, had to be a good number.

[Gregorian]

52. Is there no common sense?

In my mind at least, I say we absolutely stop all the machines now, and put a moratorium on them. Then we simply vote on a piece of paper. Done. Then figure it out. Here we are working on the problem while in progress. That's like trying to send a man to the moon while still doing the mathematical calculations for the trajectory! Man, politicians need to have degrees in something REAL, not just big mouths and wallets.

I see this problem as trivial. You don't let them keep stealing if they've already done it three times.

But anyways, I see your point. And I am green. I am naive. And it's probably the nature of the political system that it's so difficult to accomplish goals.

Wow, we really ought to have an office of Common Sense. We start there. People agree that votes should not be allowed to be stolen. Then we work from that. Maybe I'm spouting bs. Maybe it's already that way. It just seems like we're spinning our wheels. Three elections? And look where we are now because of it. Disaster.

Well, it sounds like you are very involved. And busy. I don't expect you to spend much time reading and replying to posts like mine. But I appreciate the insight you've passed on to me. Thanks!

[Cookie wookie]

55. Yes, we need that ban DRE amendment to pass.

But then appears HR811 has stalled -- election officials are having a fit.

I agree with you. We need the Office of Common Sense to take this on... They do agree votes should not be stolen -- except of course for the election fraudsters -- it's just how to keep them from not being stolen that's the rub. Election officials hate paper in any form. All I can say is well la de da. If they can't keep track of paper ballots, why in heaven's name should we be expected to trust them with electronic ballots? They love these systems because it isn't possible to tell if the votes are stolen so they can say, hey ain't it great that the election went so smoothly and all the votes are perfectly cast and counted.

D'oh!

As to getting a group consensus on anything, though, whenever a group of my friends or family tries to decide to get together to do something, well, it takes some work to get everyone to agree on place time etc. Maybe I just have contentious people in my life, but I think, well, that's politics baby and multiply that by millions and whalla, you have the Office of No Common Sense in charge.

[althecat]

46. Well... a very good summation of the argument Cookie Wookie Thankyou.

Every word.

[Cookie wookie]

56. Thanks, dear Cat!

[althecat]

48. Apologies for liberal lifting of material for Post #47 above....

All credit to Cookie Wookie. Its hard to talk in other peoples shoes.

[ryanus]

4. that's good. We need to ban central tabulators, too

at least ones that don't have a solid paper trail

[philly_bob]

6. Davis' Washington Number

I called [phone].

Phone answerer didn't seem to be familiar with issue...

Ended up just saying "I hope she introduces an amendment to strengthen the Holt Bill."

Bob=

[emlev]

8. Just talked to someone in Davis's DC office--calls useful

not just to her but to the members of the Committee. He seemed surprised that people are hearing about this, asked how I'd heard. What he told me is that even though Davis isn't on the Rules Committee, she (or her staff, not sure) is talking to members of the Rules Comm. about making it so that such an amendment could be considered on the House floor.

[Greyskye]

9. That's a start

:kick:

[Melissa G]

10. I made calls to the entire rules committee and my rep first thing this morning

An email from voter's unite was what prompted me....Thanks to Brad for the more in depth explanation!

This below came to me from Ellen Theisen with some nice handy numbers. Make your calls folks!

We have heard from VERY reliable sources that a DRE-ban amendment will be or has been presented to the Rules Committee, and that they may be reluctant to allow it.

TODAY, NOW call and/or fax the Rules Committee and/or members and urge them to allow it to go to the floor. If you know a House member who support the ban, contact them to pressure the Rules Committee also.

Names and numbers of the committee and members are below.

I encourage you to pass on this email!

Ellen Theisen
Co-Director
www.VotersUnite.Org



Committee on Rules
202-225-9091

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, NY - CHAIRWOMAN (D)
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_conten...
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

JAMES P. McGOVERN, MA (D)
http://mcgovern.house.gov/?sectionid=2 §iontree=2
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FL (D)
http://www.alceehastings.house.gov/index.php?option=com...
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

DORIS O. MATSUI, CA (D)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

DENNIS CARDOZA, CA (D)
http://www.house.gov/cardoza/biography.shtml
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
800-356-6424

PETER WELCH, VT (D)
http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content...
Phone [phone]

KATHY CASTOR, FL (D)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

MICHAEL ARCURI, NY (D)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

BETTY SUTTON, OH (D)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Republicans

DAVID DREIER, CA (R) Ranking Minority Member
Office [phone]
Fax [phone]

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, FL (R)
Phone: [phone]

DOC HASTINGS, WA (R)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

PETE SESSIONS, TX (R)
[phone]
[phone] fax

[emlev]

11. Toll-free #s for Capitol Hill Switchboard

Thanks to CaliMary from an old thread. I'm about to try them and see if they still work.

1 (800) 828 - 0498

1 (800) 459 - 1887

1 (800) 614 - 2803

1 (866) 340 - 9281

1 (866) 338 - 1015

1 (866) 220 - 0044

1 (877) 851 - 6437

Any of these numbers should get you to the switchboard. Then ask for the Member you're calling.

[Misskittycat]

17. I just called Susan Davis' office. At first, the guy who answered

the phone didn't know what I was talking about, but then after a while, I cleared it up for him. I'm from a neighboring Congressional distrct in San Diego.

[emlev]

18. All numbers except the second one still work. eom

[Stevepol]

12. The main problem with 811 is that it doesn't ban the touchscreens.

This amendment would remove most of the reservations that folks like Brad have about it. It sounds as if Brad would go for the bill if it would outlaw the touchscreens. His fear was that the bill would insure the presence of the touchscreens in perpetuity and make it next to impossible to get rid of them.

I think this is a great turn of events, especially if it could happen.

[robinlynne]

16. Absolutely! There are many other problems, but banning the dres would be a huge

change. That would make it worth it in my opinion. Restricting them, not. They need to go!

[krispos42]

19. I love touchscreens

As long as the ONLY thing they do is put my selections onto a ballot the machine prints out and hands to ME, so that then I can visually verify the ballot with my own two eyes, before I drop it in the ballot box for later hand counting with media and public scrutiny.

Everything else is bullshit.

But the touchscreen allows the use of other languages, as well as large fonts for the visually impaired.

Saves paper, because only one ballot per voter is printed.

[BradBlog]

30. Nonsense...

Studies across the country have shown that costs for DREs are anywhere from 300% to 1000% higher than the cost of paper ballot systems. Perhaps you'll save paper, but you won't save tax dollars!

Furthermore, even with a system that prints out the ballot, to be counted by another means, will disenfranchise voters when it breaks down and voters can't vote. That's exactly what happened to thousands, if not millions of voters during the primaries and general in '06.

When DREs breakdown, voters can't vote. Period. That doesn't happen w/ paper ballot systems.

Not to mention that Rice University found that two-thirds of voters don't notice vote flips when it occurs in front of their face!

Other than that, touch-screens are great! ;-)

[krispos42]

41. Oh, I like the bubble sheet ballots, personally

And the touchscreens can be screwed with. Like make the touch areas for Republicans bigger than for Democrats.

When the nice election lady asked me if I wanted to try out the precinct touch-screen machine I said very quickly "Oh, god, no!", and took the bubble ballot and marker she held out to me! :-)

I figure this: it's only every two years. Do the damn paper and count them by hand!

[AtomicKitten]

13. Bravo!!!!

[diane in sf]

15. Called Pelosi's office and asked for Susan Davis amendment or no on HR811

[Senator]

21. K&R

[emlev]

23. "I'm calling about HR 811." "Is this about the Davis amendment?"

Go, DU! We're being heard!

[MindPilot]

24. Right on Susan!!!

She's my rep!!

Calling her SD office right now!

On edit: called Susan's office; the person who answered the phone knew *exactly* what I was talking about.

[BradBlog]

25. ENDORSEMENTS FOR DAVIS AMENDMENT NOW ROLLING IN!

The BRAD BLOG can now confirm endorsement of the Davis Amendment from MoveOn, Verified Voting and VoteTrustUSA at this hour. All three are/were big supporters of the Holt bill as currently written!

See the updates at:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5032
...for more details.

Hope to have more such endorsements soon!

Please keep spreading the word and making noise!

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

26. Great but still one step short...

i guess the paper ballots will still make poor toilet paper once martial law is declared. The bushpigs wouldn't let it go that far if it matterered to their plans. I mean one incident in the right size and..pooof.. ballots are blown to irrelevance...

[Rocky2007]

27. bush would be in serious trouble if he declared martial law!

He has already skirted insanity these past few years. He has over stepped his powers of office. I wouldn't fore see a normal life span for him if he did declare martial law.

America is, for the most part, fed up with bush -- I can only imagine the number of hot headed rednecks lining up to take him out. (I don't know any and am not one myself). Just my opinion!

Rocky

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

31. you got that wrong. you would be in serious trouble

I wouldn't foresee one if bush left power either by resign, voting out or impeachment. Lifelong jail at the least. So he can take the chance anyway. He's got a year until election. primaries i don't know exactly. TSA can easily cut of long range interstate travel, mass crowd microwave developeed, soldiers (recruits who don't seem to object to ethical values such as Geneva Convention.), fema camps manned by Blackwater, somewhere there was talk about a military unit beeing moved to washington for riotcontrol,(dunno if thats verified though), Doomsday bill, Domestic spying, etc.

I don't say the Americans would not attempt to resist, but the pieces are in place to decapitate such a movement and impair or defuse any potential dangerous rebel "deployment". That if a large amount of people decides to rise up and refuse to work until he's gone or even resort to armed rebellion. The Busheviks are prepared. If a incident should kill off most of the hill he could perfectly legal succeed complete power with the fema as the instrument. Handy stuff like deportations and mass detention would be in their cards to play. (worked fine 60 years ago with the securing of israel)

Much of the white house staff is beeing forced out by the pentagonistas (MIC) or to use another word evacuated slice by slice. Bring back some ammunition and weapon factories etc and you could get a loyal and/or dependent caste of drones to feed the cagebars. The shattered rest would be a nuisance at best and an eversupplying pool of reasons to harshen the rules.

The current authoritharian democratic entourage could take over after bush fucks up so up hard an inherit the apparatus if bush should vanish to pacify the moods. Democrats would then be split in followers of the democrats who they'd voted for and those who want the old order restored and those who want a complete overhaul of the system. Divide and conquer.

my assumption

- Your congressfolk give 2 shits about what you mail or phone them
- Electronic voting ban and white house expels are mere token victories if not clever marketet ploy points
- you will eventually get martial law
- you will attack iran
- you'll possibly get a reichstagsbrand-event (not in this order)
- you'll not resist organised
- you'll be utterly crushed and contained if you attempt to do above, because the pieces have been moving to their places for some years now to exactly meet this situation.
- you'll have successfully been convertet from a citizen to a subject

bush has nothing to win when he leaves the white house..so why not give it a try. Ethics in general, human and environmental casualties haven't actually been much of an obstacle as of yet (even predating bush, but then a bit more covert and off screen).

in summarization 3 words

you are fucked.

i know ..i'm not an optimist. but in my opinion you waited to long. you stop a drunk-wannabe-driver when he enters the car, not when he's acceleratet from 0-100 and owns the police.

good luck anyway... you'll need it. We all do.

:tinfoilhat::scared::hide::nuke:

edit to add:
i'd look for an amassing of hill folks for a likely event (convention, funerals of important persons, perhaps disease ...) to spark the next grand step in consolidating power.

i'd do it before the democrats had rallied around one challenger

[Zorra]

28. "...Davis' office is considering language for such an amendment.."

It is critically important to word this amendment so that there are no loopholes. The fascists pretty much control our judiciary, and we have seen more than enough of how republicans employ very loose semantic interpretations to circumvent the intent of our laws and Constitution.

[Vidar]

29. Sounds good, though there's always some drawback.

[olddad56]

33. The elections will be rigged one way or another, so what does it matter.

[philly_bob]

34. If San Diego Susan pulls this off, I promise ...

not to say anything for a month about pro-business and moderate Democrats; Davis is a member of the New Democratic Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition).

Her voting record looks good: (http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=CA53&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=61&y=3)

Born in Cambridge, Mass in 1944, went to Berkeley.

from BradBlog:



Dare we hope she'll repair Holt voting bill???

[fedupfisherman]

35. What chance does this have passing the Senate?

Will the Senate end up killing it?

[emlev]

37. Senate version 1487 (Feinstein) is even worse!

See articles at VotersUnite!

[althecat]

44. If they do they will look even more like craven fools than they already do.

[lonestarnot]

36. Well what happened? This afternoon is long gone.

[emlev]

38. Here's a report

on Brad Blog

[lonestarnot]

40. Thanks emlev.

[althecat]

43. Straight to the top... Straight through rules and then hopefully straight through the HOR

KnR

This is very very good news. Excellent work Congresswoman Davis. :yourock:

[philly_bob]

49. Holt Bill opponents: if revision in Davis statement is accepted,

do you still object to 811?

See statement at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5036#more-5036

Other news: New York Times editorial on touchscreen DRE's: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/opinion/06thu1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[althecat]

54. Good editorial. Time for a flip-flop? Maybe.

Of course I can only speak for myself.

If the ban is passed then I will be most probably changing my position. Having a flip flop if you like :)

[philly_bob]

59. Me too. Funny how flip-flops got such a bad name ...

when changing one's position according to changed circumstances is entirely rational. Flexibility and compromise just don't make sense to True Believers, Authoritarians, and Absolutists -- American's Republican Right.

[Kurovski]

50. K&R. (nt)