Center for Democracy and Election Management has responded. Suggestions?

[tommcintyre]

Admittedly, it's a small start (the correspondence below). But they did respond positively (and with a personal answer).

Here are the type of questions I will be asking them now ( any other suggestions?):

- How were the members of the commission chosen?

- Why was there so little notice before the first hearing?

- Considering how much possible evidence of election fraud has been uncovered, why isn't the commission investigating it?

- Why are none of the qualified professionals (like Dr. Steven Freeman and/or the other PH d's who authored the most recent USCV report) being asked to be panelists at your hearings?
------------
I will ask these questions MOST politely, and ONLY send them to the email address Conyers requested (see below).

Have I "...established an open channel..." as Conyers put it? We will see. If not, I will set up an Express Blaster which has generated over 1,000 individual emailers in about 24 hours (C-Span blast for Conyer's Ohio Forum in December). But I will give them the benefit of the doubt first, and try to work with them.
-----------------
<Conyer's request:>
http://www.conyersblog.us/

"I would ask that you contact the commission only via the email box which they have established to receive your comments concerning the commission: [e-mail].

---------------------------------------------------------------------
<Original message I sent:>

"Tom McIntrye"
04/19/2005 09:20 AM
To <[e-mail]>
cc
Subject: Request for transcript of Commission press statement and press conference

Although the panalist's testimony (and Q&A) was broadcast on C-Span, the 4PM press statement and press conference was not. Do you have the transcript or audio or video link available?

Thank you in advance.

----------------------------
<Response:>

From: Center for Democracy and Election Management
To: Tom McIntrye
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Request for transcript of Commission press statement and press conference

Dear Mr. McIntrye:

The transcript of the press conference is now posted on our website at <http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/0418transcript.pdf>.

Daniel Calingaert
Associate Director
-------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Democracy & Election Management
3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW Suite 265
Washington, DC 20016-8026
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cdem/

-----------------------

[LatePeriduct]

1. Just one.

Show them all the proof reported inside EIRS system that shows this going on everywhere.

http://www.votersunite.org

Less words, more documents.

[tommcintyre]

2. Good suggestion

Less is more sometimes.

[Wilms]

3. n/t

[KnowerOfLogic]

4. Why do we have secret software counting our votes? This is really

fundamental to the whole thing. The fact that the computers and software are kept secret from the public should be evidence enough that not everything is above board. It is absolutely unbelievable that we are allowing our votes to be counted on software that no one is allowed to see or inspect.

[tommcintyre]

5. Good news! Pastor volunteered a push for "open source code"

Watch the 30 minute video here to se him say it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x359815

[Chi]

6. Who selects the panelists.... n/t

[tommcintyre]

20. Will be part of: "How were the members of the commission chosen?" nt

[Wilms]

7. kick n/t

[tommcintyre]

8. Any more suggestions? I will be sending an EM Sunday evening n/t

[liam_laddie]

14. funding sources

tommc...Please try to determine : Who are the funding
sources for Dr. Pastor's own work. For AU's Center for D&EM.
For all the panel's expenses, including staff costs (doubt all those panel members and witnesses are absorbing their own expenses pro bono.) And most of all...who selected / appointed and vetted the panel membership? Baker AND Carter??? You know my viewpoint...Carter was included to give this sham exercise some cover. But I think he knows he's being used and
will have some surprises...I can implore the higher powers that
this is the case. Respectfully submitted, liam_laddie :kick:

[tommcintyre]

15. Here's some info:

"no one's getting officially paid yet."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=360077#360693

I will try to find out more.
-------------
"who selected / appointed and vetted the panel membership?"
Pastor, in his Washington Journal interview, seemed to exhibit some uncomfortable body language, when asked: "How was the panel selected?", by the interviewer. This definitely deserves further exploration.
Link to watch here: the question was asked about half way through the show.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x359815
---------------
"<Carter>...will have some surprises..."
He is definitely pushing very hard for VVPB (or "paper trail"). He mentioned it several times in the hearing; and check out how many times he talked about it in this very short press conference.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x360617

[Amaryllis]

9. Why isn't Conyers on the panel? Why isn't Chuck Herrin on the panel?

[Melissa G]

10. why is Baker still on the Panel? n/t

[tommcintyre]

21. Yes. Was he really Carter's choice?

As Carter has implied. I doubt it. I will definitely do all to explain why Baker is a liability to the credibility of the commission. He is the single most important reason this is being referred to as a sham commission.

[tommcintyre]

16. Herrin as panelist (testifyer), excellent - since he's a repub

Conyers is explained as a "missed opportunity" to be on the commission; but WHY don't they at least have him as a panelist (testifyer) next time.

I still think we should push to have Conyers added to the commission though (and Baker and Munro off).

[garybeck]

11. ask them why

private companies can count our votes in secret when we the law calls for transparent elections


just wondering....

[Amaryllis]

13. That's the best question.

[tommcintyre]

17. Pastor talks about source code cert. in his 30 min C-Span interview

It starts at the 25:45 mark: "...it is very important that their source codes, be available for certification by independent organizations, like, NIST, the Election Assistance Comm. or state-wide organizations as well."
http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Commission+on+Federal+Election&image1.x=20&image1.y=2&image1=Submit

Also, both Pastor and Carter talk about VVPB, etc.

Unfortunately, that's probably as close as we will get to ideal transparency this time around )PB, audits, open source).

I WILL ask the question though.

Also, just thought of another, are they also recommending mandatory random audits )not just if the vote is very close)?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[garybeck]

18. if they are really talking about VVPB

it means no more DREs. I highly doubt this commission will end up recommending all DREs to be trashed or turned into ballot marking devices. although that sure would be nice.

as far as open source goes, it has to be open to more than just a handful of organizations.

[tommcintyre]

22. Well... here is Carter's own words on the subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x360617

"...as you cast your ballot on a touch screen or a digital system, does it also give a paper ballot that will let you confirm the way you just voted and you put the paper ballot in the box and later if there’s a doubt about it, you can check the paper ballots against the electronic ballot with certainly a representative sample." (He calls it VVPB, but it sure sounds like VVPAT to me. ;) Also, the MANDATORY sample audit provision is missing.)

I don't think either provision will happen (true VVPB and mandatory audit) without Conyers on ,Baker and Munro off, and some of our guys testifying. Even then, a true VVPB is unlikely at this time - realistically, the support just isn't there. (but wait until the machines screw up BIG TIME in the next election (probably). ;) The states will begin to realize they were "had". At least with VVPAT, mandatory audit and open source code, we should be able to stop 'em from stealing some more in '06.

[berniew1]

12. Question: do they agree with the researcher evidence that it appears Kerry

won Ohio and the national total vote??
If not, why not??

http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html

[tommcintyre]

19. I'll bet they are avoiding acknowledging this,

as is Kerry (so far), and all the other major dems , except Conyers. I certainly will include the link (it's a good complement to the USCV report - which has been publicly rejected (see link below)). But I think we are going to have to get Baker (and Munro) off, Conyers on, and some of "our guys" on the next panel to testify, before this type of info will "see the light of day".

Pastor rejects the USCV report at 10:50 on the 30 min interview on C-Span:
http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Commission+on+Federal+Election&image1.x=20&image1.y=2&image1=Submit