Why won't the Dems (& independents & Repubs) deal with election fraud?
By Lee Russ
Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 03:19 PM
Last night I dragged myself and my head cold over to the local Junior High School for the last pre-election rally for Independent Senate candidate Bernie Sanders and a host of Democratic candidates running for federal or state-wide office.The good news? Sanders is a very good candidate who can clearly and quickly articulate the games that the Repubs have played in Congress over the last 12 years, and would be a huge improvement over almost anyone currently sitting in the Senate.
The bad news: My wife and I both tried to make a point to him after the meeting that we need to do something about the integrity of our elections, only to be quickly and perfunctorily blown off in a very friendly manner without any real discussion. He's "aware of it" for "after the election," but I was left with the very strong opinion that Sanders, like the vast majority of the Dems, desperately wants to avoid discussing this subject in public.
Why? What are they afraid of? Being called paranoid conspiracy theorists?
It isn't like the evidence is too flimsy to be discussed seriously. From the documented stories in Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy to the official report by the U.S. Commision on Civil Rights, there's pretty well-documented evidence that votes have been suppressed on a racial basis, that a variety of games can be played with electronic voting and vote-counting machines, and that a variety of anomalies in voting results cannot be readily or easily explained.
Already in this election cycle the Brad Blog reports "Touch-Screen Votes Reportedly Hopping to Republicans During Early Voting in Texas, Missouri and Arkansas..."
I don't get it. If anyone out there is connected to a Democratic member of Congress, PLEASE, post a message, send an e-mail, just let me know what the hell the thinking is on staying silent about the issue that has the greatest potential of all the current issues to undermine democracy in this country.
And while we're at it, I'd love to hear from any Republicans who really care about this country concerning their lack of concern on the subject.
Update [2006-10-29 17:8:2 by Lee Russ]:Just an addendum, from e-commerce Times: [http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/T6hmvFOiyuyIQ5/E-Voting-Still-Stirring-Controversy-as-Mid-Term-Elections-Approach.xhtml]
According to published reports, Diebold Election Systems quietly replaced flawed components in several thousand voting machines last year. The repairs were aimed at fixing a so-called "screen-freeze" problem discovered three years earlier. The state's Board of Elections is considering whether Diebold's failure to inform the board of those changes is a violation of the company's contract.
With millions of voters set to cast ballots in key mid-term elections in just over a week, a long-simmering controversy over voting machines continues to percolate. New reports suggest a major manufacturer of e-voting kiosks quietly repaired a flaw without informing election officials.
The case involves machines in Maryland, where, according to published reports, Diebold Election Systems quietly replaced flawed components in several thousand voting machines last year. The repairs were aimed at fixing a so-called "screen-freeze" problem discovered three years earlier.
Now, the state's Board of Elections is considering whether Diebold's failure to inform the board of those changes and what brought them about represents a violation of the company's contract with the state.
Diebold reportedly replaced motherboards on some 4,700 machines in a handful of Maryland counties. Maryland has been at the forefront of a movement to create broad access to e-voting systems and as a result has found itself in the spotlight of controversy.