[Voterescue] [EDA Data Analysis] 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill to assure secure elections is a FRAUD.

[Jerry Lobdill]

Let's see... Mr. Azadpour thinks we (those he quotes) are ugly, 
irrelevant, and uninformed, but doesn't want to offend us. He says we 
don't have "fact or solution".

It seems to me that Mr. Azadpour is a newcomer to this subject, a 
newcomer with no technical expertise at all, but one who believes he 
doesn't need any and doesn't need to listen to those who do. This 
sounds familiar. It's the same attitude that Michelle Mulder and Rush 
Holt supported in Holt's previous medicine shows that masqueraded as 
legislation writing committees.

It is way past time to raise our voices to a level that the situation 
deserves. Yet there are those here who apparently would have demanded 
that the facts of Hitler's regime be discussed as if they carried no 
horrifying qualities so that the decorum of a high tea could be preserved.

I have been deeply concerned and involved in advocating for HCPB for 
about two years while looking for ways to minimize the damage that 
electronic voting systems have already shown the capability to 
produce.  Anyone who says that HCPB have the same potential for 
throwing elections as electronic voting systems is irrelevant and 
uninformed, and I'm not going to let such nonsense stand unanswered.

Jerry Lobdill

***************************
At 11:00 PM 1/21/2008, M. Aram Azadpour wrote:


>Kindly "remove" my Email ID from the list; I wish you-all success.
>
>How does one tell someone else s/he is ugly w/o offending him/her?
>
>How does on tell someone else s/he is irrelevant and uninformed w/o
>offending him/her?
>
>Those are issues I'm struggling w/ in writing this Email here and now,
>w/ that said, forgive me for I "will" sin!
>
>
>I've read all the Emails on this subject matter since yesterday till Mon
>21st about 9:00p., unfortunately, the ones w/ the loudest cries were the
>one w/ the least amount of fact and solution.
>
>Let me divert for a moment here; we have had federal statutes in the
>books for some "100" years (that is a century) on matter of political
>funding "control and reform." Now, if you were dealing with fixing a
>"technical" issue for 100 years, it would have been solved (history
>of technology speaks for itself and one needs not to be an "expert" in
>anything to conclude that observation). So why is it that for over
>100-years Americans have been "trying" to "fix" political funding issues
>and still at it as if it is 100 years ago? Pls keep in mind, I'm talking
>about federal acts, the state(s) may have had their own law(s)
>shorter or longer in the book(s) on this matter.
>
>I'm not going to repeat each point in the past day or so of Emails on
>this matter, you-all got them, too and can re/read them. "Every" concern
>voiced about e-voting-machines is equally "applicable" to "any" vote
>counting means/method, that is any (including human-vote-counting).
>
>If one is concerned of software enigma, then one should be "equally"
>concerned of mechanical voting machines. After all, how do "you"
>guarantee that someone once a mechanical voting machine is in some
>polling place can "not" replace, say, a control pin that connects the lever
>to the card-puncher so that once a leaver for one-candidate is pulled,
>another candidate's name is not punched? Or, how do "you" guarantee
>that vote-counter will "not" be bribed (or influenced) to "miss-count the
>votes" by "hand?"
>
>Consider this scenario: any voting administrative body could choice its
>own e-voting-machine, then "another" e-voting auditor looks over the
>e-voting-machine, real-time, and alarms if there is any irregularity; or,
>the voting intake system, e.g., the keyboard of your PC, is designed
>and manufactured by one vender and its output goes to two (or more)
>e-voting-machines designed and manufactured by "another" vender, or,
>an independent auditor. Let us say that a "democratic party" approved
>vender makes one peace of the e-voting and then a "republican party"
>approved vender makes the e-auditing system. Will you be happy?
>
>What I'm trying to say: there is "nothing" inherently wrong w/ e-voting
>machine, human-being is problem.
>
>If w/in 100-years the human-kind has not been able to resolve issues of
>miss funding political races, I guarantee you that within 100-years "any"
>short coming any voting system may have will be resolved, from technical
>stand point.
>
>"Your" argument is misplaced.
>
>You fail to spend the time/effort to grasp the issue; while screaming aloud
>your perceived solution.
>
>If you were not made aware of a discrepancy in a vote-tally, then how would
>you know the voting process was broken? Foremost, the issue is to work
>on a method that "best" alerts "you" of a voting irregularly rather 
>than how to
>re-count it. This is the 1st step in making "any" voting secure (or 
>more secure).
>You got to be alerted that something is wrong, before you worry about how
>to fix it.
>
>Reading not just this thread, but others I have been "shocked" at the lack of
>basic understanding folks show before jumping on others' throat on what is
>wrong or how to solve it. In another group, folks were writing that US is
>not a democracy cause we have a republic-form of government in US.
>
>Let's take another example, the Florida b/s of 2000 that went to US Supreme
>Court. While every "expert" (there was and is) was and is screaming to do
>away with the electoral college, the electoral college was the very reason and
>mechanism put in place to deal with issues such as what we saw in Florida of
>2000 (rather than going to "any" court). According to the US Constitution, the
>electoral college members of a state are the "ultimate" voters for 
>presidential election
>that was so that "clear" injustice and wrong does not get 
>propagated. The Florida
>electoral college members should "have" and "could" have voted to have Florida
>votes go for Dems and not even the US Supreme Court had the power to change
>that (because that is the Constitutional power vested w/ the electoral college
>members; the US SC can not take away a power vested by the letter of the
>Constitution itself, only an amendment to the Constitution may alter that).
>
>Folks, let us take a pause here and let us understand the issue and 
>the mechanism;
>before running around like mad. Let us not to go into the deep end.
>
>There is "nothing" inherently wrong or false w/ e-voting machine. 
>Your issue is with
>security (integrity) and not with the actual machine/method. 
>Concentrate on the
>issue.
>
>If anyone has any reply, kindly just send it to me <arama at att.net> 
>directly. I wish
>not to be on the group-list and get 10s of Emails on this matter. I 
>do not have
>time/interest on hitting my head against the wall; thank you. --Aram 
>(Grapevine, TX).
>
>ps
>we are not here (at least I'm not) to arm wrestle w/ others as who got more,
>perceived, experience w/ computers; after all one need not (and should not) be
>a mechanic to know that his/her car has a problem, the dash-board indicator(s)
>should be alerting the driver w/o requiring him/her to take the engine apart;
>w/ that said, I do have relevant experience w/ computer hardware and software
><snip>