A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency 124
Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.
Re:SENATORS introduced the bill (Score:5, Informative)
Only budget legislation. Other types can be started in either branch of congress.
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:2, Informative)
Feinstein Link (Score:3, Informative)
That's a funny glitch.
Here's the link to Dianne Feinstein's [loc.gov] Senate legislative record.
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Informative)
Intention ignorance amounts to treason, IMHO. The nation has been fucked over via unverifiable elections the last time, and congress is effectively turning a blind eye to the defective system, in order to "save a few bucks" because they did spend a shitload of money on that white elephant. I mean, Diebold isn't exactly in the poorhouse.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2, Informative)
It is dereliction of duty. The duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to serve the people of the U.S. You ought to know that, and if you don't, shame on you. I know evading responsibility is very fashionable nowadays, but it is still shady, unethical, and in this case it is certainly illegal according to the spirit of the law. WTF do you think the oath every elected official and civil servant has to take is supposed to mean?
Heh, the CAPTCHA says "righter".
Re:Stinkers (Score:2, Informative)
IMO your interpretation of the definition is absurdly permissive. According to this [lectlaw.com], "The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
I argue that there is indeed a war being waged by private interests against the people of the United States. All it would take is a panel of judges to agree. There is no factual stretch, other than the fact that finding honest government officials who are not already guilty of treason would be pretty freaking rare. Probably you will call this "tin foil hattery". If so, that just makes you one of the many who find denial more comfortable than truth. I'm just not wired that way, myself.