Americans have no reason to accept 2004 election e-votes

www.libertywhistle.us

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
-Among circumstantial evidence, a common thread: e-voting machines don’t meet rule of law in vast areas of US
-Grounds to reject 2004 results already exists
By Dan Spillane The Liberty Whistle

(SEATTLE) 11/14/04 – While plenty of questions remain after the 2004 elections concerning electronic voting equipment, so far evidence of fraud is said to be circumstantial. Therefore, the media has jumped to the conclusion that nothing was awry during elections, and has been running duplicate stories, more or less claiming internet activists are engaged in “conspiracy theories.”

Yet activists have only reviewed facts and figures, most of which are spewed out by computer equipment. Absent paper ballots, however, the reliability of these figures is completely and utterly dependent on the diligence of pre-certification for said equipment; this certification ensures elections are carried out under the rule of law, and give equal protection to e-votes and actual ballots. And therein lies a profoundly big, and ugly, fly in the 2004 election results ointment--a fly that quickly trounces the “all clear” signal echoed in the US media.

You see, it turns out the manufacture and pre-certification of e-voting equipment is largely centralized in the US; moreover, direct (rather than circumstantial) evidence of insecure software, and outright fraud has surfaced recently, related to the central certification lab for US voting equipment. What this means in practical terms is that votes in large e-voting counties all over the US aren’t being given the equal protection and consideration as those in counties with paper ballots. In short, the alleged “equivalence” of electronic records with paper ballots is a sham, in not one, but many areas of the US. Add into the mix, e-voting equipment and certification has never survived (let alone been submitted to) a proper legal challenge… what we’re left with is a moral, ethical and legal obligation to throw out the 2004 election results.

It only follows then that any state which includes 2004 e-voting results in a tally cannot certify final results until it is demonstrated that the underlying diligence in e-voting certification is equivalent to the paper ballot, and “one person, one vote.” But if such a claim is made in coming days, Americans have absolutely no reason to accept it—without the rule of law, US election results simply aren’t free, fair, nor democratic.

So while there may not be direct evidence that Bush “stole” the election, as rumored on the Internet--there is also no direct evidence that he won either, for the very same reason. As they say in computer circles, “garbage in, garbage out.” Certainly, the world’s largest democracy needs more than unsubstantiated electronic numbers to name a president. It follows then, US and world citizens have the right of rejection, protest, and direct action-- as they see fit--until the rule of law in US e-voting elections is established.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The manufacturers of the voting machines pay a company to

certify them.

It's not an independent process.

[Blaze Diem]

2. So with this said, who cares at the top of the Bush heap?

It seems we have been saying this about the e-voting machines for some time, and not one thing was done to correct public doubt then.

I would like to know where this will go from this point. Will it be taken to the Supreme Court? The House? And so what. We don't have to accept the results of the e-vote machines. I agree and applaud this article.
I guess now that Bush has claimed victory and moves forward with his occupation, won't this simply continue to fall on deaf ears?

What does this change about how things are now, and who, at the top of the Bush heap gives a crap what the American people believe about fairness and the rule of law.
I appreciate this but doubt it changes anything as far as People vs. Bush is concerned.

3. It is up to EACH PERSON--

If each person rejects the result, then there is no result. It's that simple.

Next, tell all your friends not to accept the phony result.

You just THINK you have to accept the result. But you don't have to.

Send a chain e-mail to all your friends, asking them to also not accept the result.

I'll bet half of America will reject the result, once they know the truth.

[Blaze Diem]

4. How can this change the current situation?

I appreciate your post DanSpillane. It is reassuring to those who have known all along that something is quite amiss with the e-vote machines. But isn't that what the Bush election "manipulators wanted al along? A way to certify Bush's re-election pior to the actual election.
My point is, These people have done so much onthe very edge of, if not blatantly against the law that how, for those who wish to never say never, can we bring this to the fore and yet get it past those who have simply run roughshod over our American government?

What's next for the true freedom fighters? How do we get past the fact that our pleas and findings are ignored?

Cripes Sake, there has to be some way to return sanity to our government.

tks
Blaze

[Cleita]

5. So can we get them to throw out those votes and

have a run-off election with paper ballots instead? I really think in a truly democratic society we could. But, in a dictatorship I don't think it will make a difference.

[JudyM]

6. We have a communication issue ahead of us - let's start brainstorming

We know that one of *'s strengths is hammering home an untruth repeatedly until people fall in with it. Nor do we have mainstream media on our side. We cannot assume that Kerry will step forward with a circumstantial case (assuming that's what we end up with), so we have no real leader, we are on our own and need to organize. We need to consider the best way to communicate this so that it comes across as powerfully and convincingly as possible. We need a team of attorneys and PR experts to work on this voluntarily.

[Karenina]

7. Kick!

:kick:

[SoCalDem]

8. Without media on our side, it's meaningless. THEY are the microphone

We have the internet, but the public perception is still shaped by newspapers/TV/radio..

By virtue of the issue being Major Media=OK with results...Internet=Not OK.. the internet is percieved as a bunch of kooks tilting at windmills..

So far only ONE media person (Olbermann) has stepped forward to even suggest that things might be amiss..


Attorneys (except for *² lawyers have been successfully demonized in the eyes of most people)

Kerry, for reasons unknown to or understood by his followers, has decided to hold onto the excess money and take a pass on any effort to examine the razor-thin, hoplessly screwed up mess in Ohio..

[JudyM]

9. Are you suggesting we give up rather than mustering what we have?

[SoCalDem]

10. Not at all..

Just trying to inject some reality.. We have damned few opportunities, and what we have will be under attack for 4 long years:(

I really think that the DNC finally started to see the light, and might have actually tried to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine, but we all know that will not happen now..

I am just sad :cry:

[JudyM]

11. I'm with you and we can turn that sadness into action

We just need to get organized and put our outrage to work.

[tommcintyre]

12. we must fix it one way or another before 2006

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud_things_you_can_do.htm